action #169324
opengeekotest: Show package names
0%
Description
User story¶
As a reviewer, when investigating jobs from the "Automatic bisect jobs" comments I would like to know what packages are in the incidents.
See e.g.
Here it would be useful to query smelt and display the corresponding packages next to the incident numbers:
- jeos-filesystem:investigate:bisect_without_36266 (samba): https://openqa.suse.de/t15855289
- jeos-filesystem:investigate:bisect_without_36303 (java-17-openjdk ): https://openqa.suse.de/t15855290
- jeos-filesystem:investigate:bisect_without_36305 (gradle ): https://openqa.suse.de/t15855291
Acceptance criteria¶
- AC1: Incident packages are displayed in the "Automatic bisect jobs comment"
Suggestions¶
- Query smelt or the QE-Dashboard for getting the packages (e.g. http://dashboard.qam.suse.de/api/incidents/36266 and
packagestherein)
Further details¶
<none)
Files
Updated by okurz 16 days ago
- Category set to Feature requests
- Priority changed from Normal to Low
- Target version set to future
Hi, thank you for reporting this neat idea.
The current parsing of openQA job settings and triggering is done in https://github.com/os-autoinst/scripts/blob/master/openqa-trigger-bisect-jobs. If we would want to parse the package name from qem-dashboard or smelt we could do it in that script. But as alternative we can consider to read out package names already when triggering openQA jobs in qem-bot which already parses such data. So we could forward the id:package relation in job settings even though openQA jobs don't strictly need it and then only access such information when triggering those SLE maintenance investigation bisect jobs.
The idea of the ticket is valid but the scope of users benefitting from that is low in comparison and rather low RoI so prioritizing as "Low" accordingly and in "future". Please reach out to me if you think we should consider.
Updated by ph03nix 15 days ago
okurz wrote in #note-1:
The idea of the ticket is valid but the scope of users benefitting from that is low in comparison and rather low RoI so prioritizing as "Low" accordingly and in "future". Please reach out to me if you think we should consider.
That's ok for me, I hope this makes it one fine day.