[cfe-dev] LLVM IRC channel flooded?

[Aaron Ballman]

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Jonathan Roelofs
<jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/19/15 8:15 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I know it's a reasonably valuable thing to have the buildbot IRC bot
>> publishing results, but the channel is kind of flooded with the
>> messages, and the more bots we put up, the worse it will be.

Are you more concerned about the average size of the bot message, or
the number of times the bots speak up in the channel? I find the
quantity manageable, but the size can sometimes be obnoxious and
distracting.

>>
>> I think we still need the NOC warnings, but not over IRC. The Buildbot
>> NOC page is horrible and useless, since it doesn't know the difference
>> between "it's red and I know it" from "it's broken".
>>
>> For that reason, I have built my own NOC page:
>>
>> http://people.linaro.org/~renato.golin/llvm/arm-bots/
>
>
> I like it!

I like this as well, but do miss having the revision number as part of
the immediate information (that's how I usually tell whether a red bot
is an actual problem for one of my commits -- if the revision is too
old, then I assume it's building my fix and I'm okay).

>>
>> But that machine is too slow to cope with all bots. We may need a
>> project to build such a system on a larger scale.
>>
>> However, for now, I think not printing the green results in IRC would
>> go a long way of cleaning the channel up.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>
>
> Even shortening up the messages from them would go a long way...
>
> For example (one example of failure and success for each):
>
> 4:45:58 AM - green-dragon-bot: Project Clang Stage 1: cmake, incremental RA,
> using system compiler (Build) build r237678 (#9856): FAILURE in 41 sec:
> http://lab.llvm.org:8080/green/job/clang-stage1-cmake-RA-incremental_build/9856/
> - blamelist: chfast
>
> 5:13:03 AM - green-dragon-bot: Project Clang Stage 1: cmake, incremental RA,
> using system compiler (Build) build r237680 (#9857): FIXED in 12 min:
> http://lab.llvm.org:8080/green/job/clang-stage1-cmake-RA-incremental_build/9857/
>
> 7:18:45 AM - bb-chapuni: build #6916 of ninja-clang-x64-mingw64-RA is
> complete: Failure [failed test-llvm]  Build details are at
> http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/ninja-clang-x64-mingw64-RA/builds/6916 blamelist:
> Zoran Jovanovic <zoran.jovanovic at imgtec.com>, NAKAMURA Takumi
> <geek4civic at gmail.com>, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com>, Yaron Keren
> <yaron.keren at gmail.com>, Tim Northover
> 7:18:45 AM - bb-chapuni: <tnorthover at apple.com>, David Majnemer
> <david.majnemer at gmail.com>, Daniel Jasper <djasper at google.com>, Pete Cooper
> <peter_cooper at apple.com>, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>, Jozef Kolek
> <jozef.kolek at imgtec.com>, Michael Kuperstein
> <michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com>, Pawel Bylica <chfast at gmail.com>, Richard
> Smith <richard-llvm at metafoo.co.uk>, Alexey Bataev
> 7:18:45 AM - bb-chapuni: <a.bataev at hotmail.com>, Matthias Braun
> <matze at braunis.de>, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>, Reid Kleckner
> <reid at kleckner.net>, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>, Filipe Cabecinhas
> <me at filcab.net>
>
> 7:43:47 AM - bb-chapuni: build #6917 of ninja-clang-x64-mingw64-RA is
> complete: Success [build successful]  Build details are at
> http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/ninja-clang-x64-mingw64-RA/builds/6917
>
> 8:20:46 AM - llvmbb___: build #3947 of sanitizer-x86_64-linux-autoconf is
> complete: Failure [failed annotate failed tsan output_tests]  Build details
> are at
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-autoconf/builds/3947
> blamelist: yrnkrn, zjovanovic
>
> 8:32:33 AM - llvmbb___: build #3948 of sanitizer-x86_64-linux-autoconf is
> complete: Success [build successful]  Build details are at
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-autoconf/builds/3948
>
>
> In each of those three, the builder's name is repeated, as well as the build
> #, and there's no mention of the svn revision that they built. In the case
> of Chapuni's buildbot, the email addresses are not useful in comparison to
> the svn usernames from the other bots. This is compounded by the slow bots
> that blame the world when there's a failure.
>
> Also, perhaps the URLs should be shortened?
>
> The format could be: [botname]: [buildername] [short_url]
> ("Passed"|"Failed:" [usernames])
>
> i.e:
> llvmbb__: sanitizer-x86_64-linux-autoconf http://bit.ly/1R0hPbR Failed:
> yrnkrn, zjovanovic

I very much like this format for displaying the information in IRC.
It's succinct, but useful.

Removing the "passed" messages from IRC might reduce the spam, but at
the expense of making it more difficult for the person who broke the
bots to track down when each bot is fixed (unless we aggregate that
data across bots). If we reduce the size of the messages, I think that
may go a long way towards being less distracting.

~Aaron