Project

General

Profile

action #91770

QA - coordination #99303: [saga][epic] Future improvements for SUSE Maintenance QA workflows with fully automated testing, approval and release

coordination #109647: [epic] Future improvements: Simpler investigation of openQA test failures

Optional job investigation information in "investigation" tab rather than comments

Added by okurz about 1 year ago. Updated 3 months ago.

Status:
New
Priority:
Low
Assignee:
-
Category:
Feature requests
Target version:
Start date:
2021-04-26
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Difficulty:

Description

Motivation

https://confluence.suse.com/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=openqa&title=QAM+openQA+review+guide explains the current process for openQA test review within SUSE QAM. We have already learned that they rely on some special rules which have not been foreseen like this within openQA, e.g. they see the black certificate as "tests reviewed and failures can be ignored" rather than "every job has a comment but not necessarily more than that" which is why we can look for a way to put such information not in comments but the "investigation" openQA job details.

Acceptance criteria

  • AC1: openqa-investigate output is visible in the job investigation information, not in comments

Suggestions

  • Instead of posting a comment over the API we could try to upload a JSON file to the job logs and if such file follows a convention in the file name we could parse such JSON file and display that as part of the investigation tab.

History

#1 Updated by cdywan about 1 year ago

I like the idea. This is sort of a case where it technically works as expected but for whatever reason users seem to have a different mental model.

Maybe it could be even easier, and we render certain comments in a different place? Considering that we have other types of special comments, where I'm using "we" in the sense of different users implementing their own bots and workflows. Well, I'd focus on this one for now, but maybe this could be more flexible and used for other use cases.

#2 Updated by okurz about 1 year ago

I am actually not sure myself. For example the open build service has this concept of "reviews" which also provide a different stream of comments but I think the design there struggles a lot as can be seen in a weird mixture of reviews and comments by both people as well as bots. There are sister stories which I prefer for now to at least help the case which so far only seems to bother SUSE QAM

#3 Updated by okurz 3 months ago

  • Parent task changed from #89062 to #109647

Also available in: Atom PDF