[llvm-dev] False positive notifications around commit notifications

Philip Reames via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Oct 28 13:56:33 PDT 2021

On 9/22/21 2:45 AM, Florian Hahn wrote:
> Hi Philip,
>> On Sep 9, 2021, at 23:18, Philip Reames via llvm-dev 
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> *Flaky Builders*
>> ex: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/68/builds/18250
>> We have many build bots which are not entirely stable.  It's gotten 
>> to the point where I *expect* failure notifications on literally 
>> every change I land. I've been trying to reach out to individual 
>> build bot owners to get issues resolved, and to their credit, most 
>> owners have been very responsive.  However, we have enough builders 
>> that the situation isn't getting meaningful better.
>> Recommendation: Introduce specific "test commits" whose only purpose 
>> is to run the CI infrastructure.  Any builder which notifies of 
>> failure on such a commit (and only said commit) is disabled without 
>> discussion until human action is taken by the bot owner to 
>> re-enable.  The idea here is to a) automate the process, and b) shift 
>> the responsibility of action to the bot owner for any flaky bot.
> Thanks for raising this issue! My experience matches what you are 
> describing. The false positive rate for me is seems to be at least 10 
> false positives due to flakiness to 1 real failure.
> I think it would be good to have some sort of policy spelling out the 
> requirements for having notification enabled for a buildbot, with a 
> process that makes it easy to disable flaky bots until the owners can 
> make them more stable. It would be good if notifications could be 
> disabled without requiring contacting/interventions from individual 
> owners, but I am not sure if that’s possible with buildbot.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D112755 adds the first pieces of some 
documented policy around build bot expectations.  It does not address 
the point you raise as the intent was to be a minimal documentation of 
existing practice, and thus hopefully be non-controversial, but assuming 
this moves forward, I plan to revisit this topic in its own review.
> Cheers,
> Florian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20211028/85a8b55c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list