https://progress.opensuse.org/https://progress.opensuse.org/themes/openSUSE/favicon/favicon.ico?15829177842020-10-14T11:20:44ZopenSUSE Project Management ToolopenQA Project - action #73366: auto-review: Improve outputhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/73366?journal_id=3360192020-10-14T11:20:44Zlivdywanliv.dywan@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Description</strong> updated (<a title="View differences" href="/journals/336019/diff?detail_id=330922">diff</a>)</li><li><strong>Category</strong> set to <i>Feature requests</i></li></ul> openQA Project - action #73366: auto-review: Improve outputhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/73366?journal_id=3363162020-10-15T11:11:19Zokurzokurz@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Subject</strong> changed from <i>Implement JUnit output in auto_review</i> to <i>auto-review: Improve output</i></li><li><strong>Description</strong> updated (<a title="View differences" href="/journals/336316/diff?detail_id=331192">diff</a>)</li><li><strong>Target version</strong> set to <i>Ready</i></li></ul><p>Hi, I changed the description to better conform to the template of feature requests instead of defects :)</p>
<p>In particular I changed the subject line to not prescribe the implementation but leave it open to the developer to choose how to cover the user story.</p>
<p>Also I moved the existing acceptance criteria into suggestions because I think it is actually not feasible for us to achieve AC1. To my understanding a gitlab CI pipeline can not dynamically define new jobs that would represent failed results. Also the optional junit part should not be an acceptance criterion if it is optional.</p>
<p>@cdywan WDYT?</p>
openQA Project - action #73366: auto-review: Improve outputhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/73366?journal_id=3365112020-10-16T09:16:48Zmkittlermarius.kittler@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Assignee</strong> set to <i>mkittler</i></li></ul> openQA Project - action #73366: auto-review: Improve outputhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/73366?journal_id=3365652020-10-16T13:40:45Zmkittlermarius.kittler@suse.com
<ul></ul><p>PR for printing a summary of jobs to be reviewed at the end: <a href="https://github.com/os-autoinst/scripts/pull/38" class="external">https://github.com/os-autoinst/scripts/pull/38</a></p>
<p>That's just a simple change but already a huge improvement as one no longer needs to go though all the verbose output. I made it work with <code>set -x</code> by using only a single <code>echo</code>. Unfortunately the links will still not be clickable from GitLab's CI output. I suppose using JUnit would only be beneficial if it leads to clickable links.</p>
openQA Project - action #73366: auto-review: Improve outputhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/73366?journal_id=3372132020-10-19T14:20:09Zlivdywanliv.dywan@suse.com
<ul></ul><p>I thought we agreed to brainstorm and collect ideas here before jumping right into code when the three of us were discussing it 😉</p>
<p>Although I like the idea of having a text summary.</p>
openQA Project - action #73366: auto-review: Improve outputhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/73366?journal_id=3372192020-10-19T14:25:06Zlivdywanliv.dywan@suse.com
<ul></ul><p>okurz wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Also I moved the existing acceptance criteria into suggestions because I think it is actually not feasible for us to achieve AC1. To my understanding a gitlab CI pipeline can not dynamically define new jobs that would represent failed results. Also the optional junit part should not be an acceptance criterion if it is optional.</p>
<p>@cdywan WDYT?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So far JUnit had been the only proposed output. With the exception of the text summary by way of a proof of concept <a class="user active user-mention" href="https://progress.opensuse.org/users/22072">@mkittler</a> now proposed.</p>
<p>I don't get the part about dynamically defining jobs.</p>
openQA Project - action #73366: auto-review: Improve outputhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/73366?journal_id=3378672020-10-20T22:02:04Zokurzokurz@suse.com
<ul></ul><p>cdywan wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I thought we agreed to brainstorm and collect ideas here before jumping right into code when the three of us were discussing it 😉</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yeah, I told mkittler of for that already ;)</p>
openQA Project - action #73366: auto-review: Improve outputhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/73366?journal_id=3393072020-10-22T12:37:48Zmkittlermarius.kittler@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Assignee</strong> deleted (<del><i>mkittler</i></del>)</li></ul><p>I put the summary in and with <a href="https://github.com/os-autoinst/scripts/pull/40" class="external">https://github.com/os-autoinst/scripts/pull/40</a> it also works when the shutdown line can not be determined. Since the last GitLab update the links are also clickable. For me that's good enough for now so I'm unassigning.</p>
openQA Project - action #73366: auto-review: Improve outputhttps://progress.opensuse.org/issues/73366?journal_id=3393492020-10-22T13:21:40Zokurzokurz@suse.com
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>New</i> to <i>Resolved</i></li><li><strong>Assignee</strong> set to <i>mkittler</i></li></ul><p>@cdywan I hope you agree that we basically achieved our main goal by being lucky and having received gitlab 13.5 just in time to have clickable URLs. Feel free to disagree, add more details to the ticket and reopen however I think currently that we are good.</p>