Not sure if anyone's aware, so just putting this here: http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/

It's marking a bunch of pull requests red which is a bit annoying...

Regards,
Alex
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals

It's been a while since I looked at the auto tester web page. I really like the new layout!

The clean front page made me poke around a bit more. I'm s bit confused by the pull tester page. When I looked just now, there was a "has passes" section and a "has failures" section. Many pull requests seem like they could go into either section.

How do people use that page? If it's to find something to review and commit, I'd expect all green pulls to be emphasized more. If it should help authors to review/fix their pull requests, I would have expected things to be sorted by author (or better yet, a distinct page per author)

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 27, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen <xtzgzorex@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not sure if anyone's aware, so just putting this here: http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/
> 
> It's marking a bunch of pull requests red which is a bit annoying...
> 
> Regards,
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals@puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals

On Thursday, September 27, 2012 20:16:25 Jason House wrote:
> It's been a while since I looked at the auto tester web page. I really like the new layout!
> 
> The clean front page made me poke around a bit more. I'm s bit confused by the pull tester page. When I looked just now, there was a "has passes" section and a "has failures" section. Many pull requests seem like they could go into either section.
> 
> How do people use that page? If it's to find something to review and commit, I'd expect all green pulls to be emphasized more. If it should help authors to review/fix their pull requests, I would have expected things to be sorted by author (or better yet, a distinct page per author)

I just search for the specific pull request I care about using the browsers search function, and I'd be doing that no matter what the page layout was because manually looking will always be slower unless it's somehow guaranteed that the specific pull(s) that you care about are always at the top (which obviously isn't going to happen). Having it laid out by pull request# as it is now seems perfectly logical to me.

- Jonathan M Davis
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Jason House wrote:

> It's been a while since I looked at the auto tester web page. I really like the new layout!
> 
> The clean front page made me poke around a bit more. I'm s bit confused by the pull tester page. When I looked just now, there was a "has passes" section and a "has failures" section. Many pull requests seem like they could go into either section.

The intent is that everything has just passes (ie no failures yet) (unknowns are included here as well) first, then everything that has known failures, then everything that's completely unknown.  Unknown means never has has a build, or the previous builds are out of date (due to either a new master branch checkin or due to the sha of the pull request being updated).

There's a section that should probably be first above the 'has passes'
block which is 'completely passes' or some label like that, where all of
the platforms have completed a current run successfully.  It'd be easy to
add, but I'm not clear on the value.

> How do people use that page? If it's to find something to review and commit, I'd expect all green pulls to be emphasized more. If it should help authors to review/fix their pull requests, I would have expected things to be sorted by author (or better yet, a distinct page per author)

When I have the time and desire to look for something to pull, I definitely look at the 'has passes' block, and focus on those that have completed a full set of runs.

I'm not overly fond of the way this page works.  It lacks a good view of history.  I worry a little about the case of a pull request that introduces a periodic / random failure.  Easy to spot if you look across 10 runs, but potentially hard to spot looking only at the most recent run. It's not terribly likely, but it's not impossible either.  A good bit of the problem is the magnitude of the number of platforms and even more so, the number of open pull requests.  It's just an enormous amount of data to present.  I'm very much open to suggestions both on layout and run ordering. There's some issues I need to address in how work is assigned to the build hosts to make things as flexible as I want, but even the current implementation has a good deal of flexibility.

Thanks for your feedback, I really appreciate it. :)

Later,
Brad

_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals

On Sep 28, 2012, at 02:24 AM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:

> I just search for the specific pull request I care about using the browsers search function, and I'd be doing that no matter what the page layout was because manually looking will always be slower unless it's somehow guaranteed that the specific pull(s) that you care about are always at the top (which obviously isn't going to happen). Having it laid out by pull request# as it is now seems perfectly logical to me.

I would say it depends on your workflow. If one starts by looking for pull request on github then your approch seems to be the best. But if one start on the pull tester when search for a pull request to review/merge then one would most likely want to see all the pull requests that passes first.

--
/Jacob Carlborg