Couple of questions. Where does this need to run? How does this get maintained regarding things like uptime? On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:52 AM Martin Stefanko <mstefank(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

I think if we were to add something to the PR process is should not rely on a single individual to maintain it, if that person is busy, asleep, sick or on holiday then there will be no one to deal with down time and other issues, On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 11:25 AM Martin Stefanko <mstefank(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

Nice! Will raise the awareness of this on the Runtimes PM Call. I would not be afraid running it in the "private" openshift as a pilot. I agree with Darran that long-term there should be a supported way how to run and maintain this tool. Cheers, Jiri On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 2:54 PM Martin Stefanko <mstefank(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: -- Jiri Pallich Senior Program Manager Middleware Runtimes and RHOAR (Red Hat Openshift Application Runtimes) Tel.: +420 532 294 393 Cell: +420 775 158 118 Email: jpallich(a)redhat.com

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:32 AM Martin Stefanko <mstefank(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: We can run it in CI somewhere if we need to, I'll need to review the docs and see whats required to run it. For the initial version, I think we should just try it in OS though, then we can move it at some point in the future. Ken

Overall if for a tool we don't care if it down and consider it's output to be something to ignore it would seem to offer little value, I would suggest we aim for it to be available with useful output. Will this just be adding a comment or will this also be influencing the status of the pull request - i.e. will these reports be affecting the tick or the cross visible next to a PR? When looking at the PR queue the ones with the green ticks are the easiest to jump into, provided no changes are required to the code they are potentially ready to merge - adding false crosses would affect this. On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 6:47 AM Martin Stefanko <mstefank(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: I think instead it should be checking all commits, it often makes sense to break work into logical chunks - often it is easier to review commit by commit. As an example it is a bad practice to bump a subsystem version and add to it within a single commit, GitHub provides no way to diff files like schemas when that happens so the only way to check is to pull the PR locally and manually diff. I suspect the manual diff is a very rare event if it happens at all. Component upgrades whilst could be in a single commit often make sense to be in individual commits. When working on an issue and encountering a related but different bug it makes sense to use a separate Jira issue and commit, it is not always practical to submit this fix in it's own PR. If working on a piece of work and another engineer also follows on you need to ensure you don't modify any shared commits etc... Overall the human code review is still mandatory and part of that review would consider the commits and if they make sense. I think something that could be useful could be to list the checks to be applied somewhere to make it easier to discuss individually, as this would be a change to the WildFly Core and WildFly pull requests it could even make sense to submit as a proposal to the wildfly-proposals repo. Absolutely everything we add to the status list we should be aiming to be accurate, CI is complex and a never ending task to keep on top of intermittent issues and flaky tests but the objective is still to reach that point. We should not be adding something else to this list deliberately with false negative reviews.

The idea is only to verify pull request structure by rules defined by Wildfly - so for instance if we require that every commit is prefixed with [WFLY-XXX] or WFLY-XXX <https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPL... . status of the pull request - i.e. will these reports be affecting the tick or the cross visible next to a PR? When looking at the PR queue the ones with the green ticks are the easiest to jump into, provided no changes are required to the code they are potentially ready to merge - adding false crosses would affect this. I found that status is better way to do this because it doesn't show in the PR log like comments or adding/removing labels do and it's able to demonstrate errors with the cross next to the commit so the author can immediately see that something is wrong and fix it with a few quick actions when the PR is created. Once the status in tyr check is green, assuming no changes to PR structure are made afterwards, it will not influence other statuses posted by CI. It boils down to what we really expect from the PR: if prefixing with [WFLY-XXX] or WFLY-XXX is a requirement than we should mandate that every PR has such title. There is also an option to specify when to skip tyr check altogether by skip patterns configurable in PR title, commit message or description (e.g. title with "No issue required"). I can also add an option to disable tyr check by authorized comment from a reviewer if needed. perfectly valid to write PRs with multiple commits. There shouldn't be any problem in adjusting this. accurate, CI is complex and a never ending task to keep on top of intermittent issues and flaky tests but the objective is still to reach that point. We should not be adding something else to this list deliberately with false negative reviews. I would say it again depends on what we expect from the PR - it either has a link to the issue or it does not so there is no possibility of false negatives. have it do more than it should. Don't come up with rules that sound right but turn out to have valid exceptions or that people just won't follow. Agreed. My initial starting point was PR template <https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPL... but all rules can be adjusted as needed. And this will be configurable anytime so if some rules won't get adopted as expected we can update or remove them. preventing us doing it, which is what my questions were driving at. We're way smarter than the tool. The status should not prevent a possibility of merge but if the cross next to the commit would be a problem we can add an override to disable tyr check (meaning make it pass manually) with a comment or similar as suggested above. Martin On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Brian Stansberry <brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 5:39 AM Darran Lofthouse < > darran.lofthouse(a)jboss.com&gt; wrote: > >> Overall if for a tool we don't care if it down and consider it's output >> to be something to ignore it would seem to offer little value, I would >> suggest we aim for it to be available with useful output. >> >> > Yes. > > >> Will this just be adding a comment or will this also be influencing the >> status of the pull request - i.e. will these reports be affecting the tick >> or the cross visible next to a PR? When looking at the PR queue the ones >> with the green ticks are the easiest to jump into, provided no changes are >> required to the code they are potentially ready to merge - adding false >> crosses would affect this. >> >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 6:47 AM Martin Stefanko <mstefank(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> > Does the commit check run against all commits in the PR? >>> >>> Not currently, I've added additional checks to verify there is only one >>> commit in the PR :) But this should be possible to do, however, force >>> pushing your way through commit history will not be an easy task. >>> >> >> I think instead it should be checking all commits, it often makes sense >> to break work into logical chunks - often it is easier to review commit by >> commit. >> > > perfectly valid to write PRs with multiple commits. > >> >> As an example it is a bad practice to bump a subsystem version and add to >> it within a single commit, GitHub provides no way to diff files like >> schemas when that happens so the only way to check is to pull the PR >> locally and manually diff. I suspect the manual diff is a very rare event >> if it happens at all. Component upgrades whilst could be in a single >> commit often make sense to be in individual commits. When working on an >> issue and encountering a related but different bug it makes sense to use a >> separate Jira issue and commit, it is not always practical to submit this >> fix in it's own PR. If working on a piece of work and another engineer >> also follows on you need to ensure you don't modify any shared commits >> etc... >> >> Overall the human code review is still mandatory and part of that review >> would consider the commits and if they make sense. >> > > Yes. > > I see this tool as helping to encourage people to follow proper practice > and save humans doing code review having to nag people over such things, or > not having the energy to nag, instead accepting things they don't really > want. > > >> I think something that could be useful could be to list the checks to be >> applied somewhere to make it easier to discuss individually, as this would >> be a change to the WildFly Core and WildFly pull requests it could even >> make sense to submit as a proposal to the wildfly-proposals repo. >> > >> >>> >>> > What happens if it is down? I figure nothing really, i.e. the check >>> just isn't performed, which is a quite reasonable failure mode. :) >>> >>> > AIUI this also has no impact on ability to merge PRs; i.e. we can >>> ignore the result same as we can ignore CI job results. Also good. >>> >>> Absolutely right. There will be only one additional status in the list. >>> Everything can be ignored. >>> >> >>> accurate, CI is complex and a never ending task to keep on top of >> intermittent issues and flaky tests but the objective is still to reach >> that point. We should not be adding something else to this list >> deliberately with false negative reviews. >> > > Yes, we want it to be accurate. We also want it to be available. > > have it do more than it should. Don't come up with rules that sound right > but turn out to have valid exceptions or that people just won't follow. > > preventing us doing it, which is what my questions were driving at. We're > way smarter than the tool. > > >> >> >>> >>> > We can run it in CI somewhere if we need to, I'll need to review the >>> docs and see whats required to run it. >>> >>> Ken, I will take this with you offline when it's decided that we can set >>> it up. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:15 PM Ken Wills <kwills(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:32 AM Martin Stefanko <mstefank(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes, understandable. Maybe it can be run where pull-player is being >>>>> run then? CC Ken. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We can run it in CI somewhere if we need to, I'll need to review the >>>> docs and see whats required to run it. >>>> >>>> For the initial version, I think we should just try it in OS though, >>>> then we can move it at some point in the future. >>>> >>>> Ken >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 12:27 PM Darran Lofthouse < >>>>> darran.lofthouse(a)jboss.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think if we were to add something to the PR process is should not >>>>>> rely on a single individual to maintain it, if that person is busy, asleep, >>>>>> sick or on holiday then there will be no one to deal with down time and >>>>>> other issues, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 11:25 AM Martin Stefanko <mstefank(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I can run it my openshift online instance so uptime would be >>>>>>> maintained by me for the time being. I have already several instances >>>>>>> running like this for some time. During F2F we've also discussed >>>>>>> possibility to use Prow project >>>>>>> <https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/tree/master/prow> for >>>>>>> wildlfy which would require a platform to run (my openshift cannot cover >>>>>>> this) and Tyr would nicely integrate with Prow (already tested). However, I >>>>>>> am not aware if there has been any movement with Prow setup for wildfly >>>>>>> repository recently. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 11:26 AM Darran Lofthouse < >>>>>>> darran.lofthouse(a)jboss.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Couple of questions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where does this need to run? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How does this get maintained regarding things like uptime? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:52 AM Martin Stefanko <mstefank(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would like to present my side project Tyr [1] which is a tool >>>>>>>>> that can verify GitHub pull request structure by a YAML definition (example >>>>>>>>> in [2]) provided by a user. The PR author sees the violations immediately >>>>>>>>> in the PR status which allows to correct mistakes right away when the PR is >>>>>>>>> created. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've recorded a short demo available at [3]. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The validation is fully configurable and can be extended with for >>>>>>>>> instance analysis document links and similar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would like to include this functionality in wildfly repository. >>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/xstefank/tyr >>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>> https://gist.github.com/xstefank/3a79f2f199ee1e449a44c607120a9d30 >>>>>>>>> [3] https://youtu.be/qZRcMQ6qIpg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Martin Stefanko >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Software Engineer >>>>>>>>> Middleware Runtimes Sustaining Engineering Team >>>>>>>>> Red Hat >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> wildfly-dev mailing list >>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> wildfly-dev mailing list >> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev > > > > -- > Brian Stansberry > Manager, Senior Principal Software Engineer > Red Hat >

rules that we know will regularly trigger a failure to be ignored, if the failure cases to be ignored are truly exceptional cases then the cross will be useful. It would be beneficial to adjust rules as we'll see how useful they are as time progresses. Configuration of rules is external to the service so it will be possible. Martin On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 5:49 PM Darran Lofthouse <darran.lofthouse(a)jboss.com&gt; wrote: > > OTOH if the mergers decide they want to do something I don't want a tool >> preventing us doing it, which is what my questions were driving at. We're >> way smarter than the tool. >> >> The status should not prevent a possibility of merge but if the cross >> next to the commit would be a problem we can add an override to disable tyr >> check (meaning make it pass manually) with a comment or similar as >> suggested above. >> > > rules that we know will regularly trigger a failure to be ignored, if the > failure cases to be ignored are truly exceptional cases then the cross will > be useful. > > >> >> Martin >> >> >>>

For the demo I've started with this <https://gist.github.com/xstefank/3a79f2f199ee1e449a44c607120a9d30>;. For additional checks I have only something to verify that issue in title matches the link in the description. Any ideas are welcome! I was also thinking about making distinction between issues / bugs and features if that would be useful. I've created a google document to track this - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZuD5fyOlGTVDh96jiuM6jTdofm4fG6gZqdfBN... . Martin On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:10 AM Darran Lofthouse < darran.lofthouse(a)jboss.com&gt; wrote:

Thanks Darran, all valid suggestions. I've moved the document to my personal public account [1] - it should be accessible to anyone now. I will incorporate your suggestions in the gist. [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/13DScS-WyQipblfDG-hjFJ12mQ7OM18TsAY-vI... Thank you, Martin On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:54 PM Darran Lofthouse < darran.lofthouse(a)jboss.com&gt; wrote: