On 04/29/2011 02:50 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> I'm proposing that we change the 0.5.0 release of AutoQA to
focus
> on getting the best information and the least noise to package
> maintainers. The focus would be on decreasing the number of emails
> that maintainers are receiving and improving the understandability
> of our logs (focusing on depcheck and upgradepath).
I talked about this with tflink in length yesterday on IRC and he
convinced me that we should really spend some time looking into this.
At first I was unwilling to waste more time with temporary solutions
like bodhi comments, but finally I had to admit that the "proper"
solutions will take some months. And in the meantime quite a few
developers could really start ignoring anything AutoQA-related or
even hate it.
On a political front, it also makes us look good by responding to issues
raised outside of the team. Again, coming from my experience at least,
if the devs rarely act in response to user-raised issues those users are
not as likely to come to the devs with ideas and suggestions.
I'm not saying that political stuff is the most important thing and this
might be obvious but I'm of the mind that it's a bit of give and take.
If we want input and help from users, it would help to respond to at
least some popular requests with more than "we don't have time for that
but look at this shiny thing in the future".
Therefore I'm inclined to re-think the work that needs to be
done
next and propose changes that won't require heavy architecture
changes, but OTOH will improve the impression AutoQA makes on package
maintainers. Like better logs readability. Like documentation.
I also think that aside from the bodhi comments part, the results from
this will be useful for a while. Easily readable and understandable logs
are always a good thing.
If we create a set of tickets relevant to this topic, I think we
could make it as the theme for 0.5.0. And move the current tickets
from 0.5.0 to 0.6.0, or some similar approach.
Sounds like a plan to me. Do we want to continue the discussion a bit
more before we start writing tickets or get started on that now?
> 1) Stop spamming maintainers with not-needed comment updates from
> bodhi - The current proposal is covered in #314 [3]
This needs to be discussed properly, I'd probably create a new thread
about it. Do we really want to discard emails for PASSED results?
What if the test FAILED first and PASSED after that, does it change
anything? And what about discarding emails for all results
altogether? How do we expect maintainers to learn the result when we
won't notify them (at least in some cases)? Can we do it configurable
per-maintainer? Are we able to send a single email after all tests
have passed? Is there a different approach?
Too many questions :) Anyway I agree we can improve in this area, we
just need to carefully consider how.
Agreed on the discussion part. Honestly, I hadn't thought about the
failed then passed situation and I bet that there are more situations
that I hadn't thought of. I'll start a separate conversation for this
and delete the review request.
Like I said before, I didn't expect the changes to bodhi to happen quite
that fast. My email to lmacken was more of a 'could any of this be done'
question than anything. It's not a criticism and more of a compliment
and a thanks for the quick turn around.
Personally, I'm still of the mind that this interface is going to be the
best way for us to reduce the amount of emails that are being sent out
to maintainers but you're right; our usage is going to require more
thought. Not too much, though because as you pointed out, ResultsDB is
going to render this pretty much useless.
>
> 2) Improve our logging - focusing on depcheck and upgradepath -
> Goal 1: maintainers should be able to find the information they
> need about why their package failed within 30 seconds of opening
> the log file.
Possible tickets: * split one big result log into small logs
per-update * create highlights per-update (relevant to ↑) * search
through command output (depcheck output is a good example) and look
for possible lines indicating the failure, then offer those to the
maintainer (e.g. highlight them)
For depcheck, in particular I think that we can also make better use of
the information we already have when we generate the logs. I haven't dug
into this yet but we might be able to generate more intelligent logs
that are more easily filtered (as Joza is talking about later in the thread.
Another thought that James brought up is generating html logs instead of
just plain text. AFAIK, our users are viewing results in a web browser
and we could take advantage of that.
I'm not hearing any thoughts to the contrary but figured that it
wouldn't hurt to be clear. If we start highlighting stuff or splitting
off sub-files, we still need to make sure that the raw data is still
available for debugging purposes or if there is some situation where our
newfangled output is hiding information.
>
> - Goal 2: users should be able to easily find documentation on
> what a test is supposed to do and examples on how to triage a
> failure using our logging output.
Possible tickets: * create a wiki page for every test with thorough
description of the test, how to interpret the results, how to find
the cause of the failure in the log, the explanation for most common
failures, links to resources with correct procedure descriptions
(e.g. packaging guidelines, etc) * link those wiki pages from bodhi
comments (can we use html in the comments, at least <a> tag?)
Those sound
like good ideas to me. I imagine that we also want to be a
bit proactive and start bugging maintainers on email lists, blogs etc -
"this is AutoQA, we've made it better. Here are examples on how to
effectively use the output, let us know if you have questions." kind of
stuff.
I think that's enough ideas for (brand new) 0.5.0, what do you
think?
I don't know, I want a pony ... does that fit into 0.5.0 ?
> And now, discussion time! Thoughts, suggestions, complaints?
Yes, please. _______________________________________________
autoqa-devel mailing list autoqa-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/autoqa-devel