From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475BAC433DF for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:44:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 145F02072A for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:44:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="cGH4Cwez" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 145F02072A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=citrix.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k1XCH-00044X-Mm; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:43:49 +0000 Received: from all-amaz-eas1.inumbo.com ([34.197.232.57] helo=us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k1XCG-00044S-DZ for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:43:48 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: 9e27f1f0-d344-11ea-abdc-12813bfff9fa Received: from esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (unknown [216.71.155.144]) by us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 9e27f1f0-d344-11ea-abdc-12813bfff9fa; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:43:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1596210226; h=from:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:message-id: date:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references; bh=ju2I/12vZhDvJEYkrAvMnqF4YhBzZ/juOIuVKzFJITc=; b=cGH4Cwezuzu2445bVl9kOkKNYCW4Ww1goWCyRBEFqQvLxqyrHjWHVu08 R434/QZc3DU5MJherO9JDtEc4dZr2/rVjsAmdRnfbQtwUY4DNlX8KkDUh Z4Ez5qKDPnDLGSz+m4d9F5SpSBAplOQSU0yZV7FTOHVn88V5oa3Rz4ROg g=; Authentication-Results: esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none IronPort-SDR: wPtrGNpzJe90TRtXKcvePH2T7zpctB+mpZoXOMyU4AgL7niD4giJ6WlNMjpUbkHL7R+5Qw/c/Y nbeUnsUt9DlufPzjPLDhogIJ6vHta/VrWKX+Kgq3o51HoAe+BRNX/aiHu22/jbC21xbUoAVtjC H24FS1bhKInRDIHEHpdPT3o1NSVzB+AmpsvrN1F2pvjx8cqoWaozm0q5EKyJyJL9prLaMF6qrK urpWk/iEIJLSWS5ZVC0jFp1s2r9tdaIL32h3JinuPVyioIMqeBApZDJxU/feSC3jc3ZHzDuKAA Vec= X-SBRS: 3.7 X-MesageID: 24517364 X-Ironport-Server: esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,418,1589256000"; d="scan'208";a="24517364" From: Ian Jackson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <24356.15406.68578.77965@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:43:42 +0100 To: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [OSSTEST PATCH v2 08/41] sg-report-flight: Ask the db for flights of interest In-Reply-To: <391CB71B-3587-40C1-BE6E-F01A6473141D@citrix.com> References: <20200731113820.5765-1-ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> <20200731113820.5765-9-ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> <391CB71B-3587-40C1-BE6E-F01A6473141D@citrix.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" George Dunlap writes ("Re: [OSSTEST PATCH v2 08/41] sg-report-flight: Ask the db for flights of interest"): > > On Jul 31, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Specifically, we narrow the initial query to flights which have at > > least some job with the built_revision_foo we are looking for. > > > > This condition is strictly broader than that implemented inside the > > flight search loop, so there is no functional change. > > Assuming this is true, that job / runvar is filtered after extracting this information, then... ... > …I agree that this shoud introduce no other changes. > > Reviewed-by: George Dunlap Thanks. Just to convince myself, I ran through the argument based on the perl code. I found a lacuna. 1. The job of findaflight is to find a flight, and it doesn't have significant side effects - just a return value. 2. If it returns a flight from the loop, $whynot must have been undef. $whynot is never unset. Consider some tree in %{ $specver{$thisthat} }. 3. If @revisions is 0 for that tree, $whynot is set. So one of the two queries $revisionsq or $revisionsosstestq must have returned some rows. 4. Furthermore, none of those rows must have passed the $wronginfo grep. If they had, $whynot would have been set. Any row whose val doesn't contain a colon, and which doesn't end up in $wronginfo, had a val equal to the requested specver. 5. Colons in this field appear only in mercurial revisions. These are now obsoelete - we have no mercurial trees. A consequence of this commit is actually that we should explicitly abolish mercurial support, at least pending a change to osstest to arrange for the val column to contain only the hash part and not the number part. 6. Together, these conditons means that if $whynot wasn't set, there must have been some row whose val matched the specver. 7. Both the $revisionsq and $revisionsosstestq queries take a flight bound variable condition. This is bound by a value that came out of @binfos. @binfos is made from %binfos, where the flight number is the key. %binfos is populated by the @binfos_todo loop, where it gets the flight number from a @binfos_todos entry - but it filters them for $bflight == $tflight. 8. So some row must have matched the flight, and the specver, and of course the name. This is precisely the new condition. I think this means I should put a commit earlier in this series which disables mercurial support until the colon version situation is rationalised. Ian.