After the Flock talk from the Facebook folks, they approached QA about the idea of submitting karma and/or test results from their internal testing as a bot account.
Is this something that is possible? I know that we have done bot accounts at various points in time but I don't remember if automated karma is allowed or what the other restrictions on that were.
Thanks,
Tim
On 8/15/19 5:16 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
After the Flock talk from the Facebook folks, they approached QA about the idea of submitting karma and/or test results from their internal testing as a bot account.
Is this something that is possible? I know that we have done bot accounts at various points in time but I don't remember if automated karma is allowed or what the other restrictions on that were.
+1 for this. In the Fedora CoreOS working group we have a few packages where we'll be testing them extensively via automated tests and we'd like to have those passing tests satisfy karma requirements for the packages to be passed through to bodhi stable. Some packages we own and most likely no one else cares about (like ignition) and others we'll test and simply add a karma point such that it's a piece of data used to determine if the package should be submitted to stable.
Dusty
This thread feels very related to https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2207
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:42 PM Dusty Mabe dusty@dustymabe.com wrote:
On 8/15/19 5:16 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
After the Flock talk from the Facebook folks, they approached QA about the idea of submitting karma and/or test results from their internal testing as a bot account.
Is this something that is possible? I know that we have done bot accounts at various points in time but I don't remember if automated karma is allowed or what the other restrictions on that were.
+1 for this. In the Fedora CoreOS working group we have a few packages where we'll be testing them extensively via automated tests and we'd like to have those passing tests satisfy karma requirements for the packages to be passed through to bodhi stable. Some packages we own and most likely no one else cares about (like ignition) and others we'll test and simply add a karma point such that it's a piece of data used to determine if the package should be submitted to stable.
Dusty _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedorapro...
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:41:53AM -0400, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 8/15/19 5:16 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
After the Flock talk from the Facebook folks, they approached QA about the idea of submitting karma and/or test results from their internal testing as a bot account.
Is this something that is possible? I know that we have done bot accounts at various points in time but I don't remember if automated karma is allowed or what the other restrictions on that were.
+1 for this. In the Fedora CoreOS working group we have a few packages where we'll be testing them extensively via automated tests and we'd like to have those passing tests satisfy karma requirements for the packages to be passed through to bodhi stable. Some packages we own and most likely no one else cares about (like ignition) and others we'll test and simply add a karma point such that it's a piece of data used to determine if the package should be submitted to stable.
Would you be open to the idea of gating your packages on these tests? (I figure this question applies to both Dusty and the facebook folks)
Down the road, I think we may want to lower the human element in our workflow in favor of automated test systems that packages are gated on, so while this idea is still very young and thus karma may be easier to implement today, it may be something to keep in mind and consider for the future.
What do you think?
Pierre
On 8/15/19 2:49 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:41:53AM -0400, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 8/15/19 5:16 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
After the Flock talk from the Facebook folks, they approached QA about the idea of submitting karma and/or test results from their internal testing as a bot account.
Is this something that is possible? I know that we have done bot accounts at various points in time but I don't remember if automated karma is allowed or what the other restrictions on that were.
+1 for this. In the Fedora CoreOS working group we have a few packages where we'll be testing them extensively via automated tests and we'd like to have those passing tests satisfy karma requirements for the packages to be passed through to bodhi stable. Some packages we own and most likely no one else cares about (like ignition) and others we'll test and simply add a karma point such that it's a piece of data used to determine if the package should be submitted to stable.
Would you be open to the idea of gating your packages on these tests? (I figure this question applies to both Dusty and the facebook folks)
Down the road, I think we may want to lower the human element in our workflow in favor of automated test systems that packages are gated on, so while this idea is still very young and thus karma may be easier to implement today, it may be something to keep in mind and consider for the future.
What do you think?
I might be using terms wrong here so forgive me if the terminology is slightly off. Basically the goal is the allow for tests to contribute a vote in some way that allows a package to be accepted to stable sooner. Some packages could be fully automated (if automated tests pass then they go to stable). Some packages could be partially automated (if automated tests pass then it contributes some to it going to stable). Whether it be "karma" or "gating" it doesn't matter to me.
Dusty
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Brian (bex) Exelbierd -
Dusty Mabe -
Pierre-Yves Chibon -
Tim Flink