#8989 add queued and running as additional supported outcomes to resultsdb
Opened 11 months ago by bgoncalv. Modified 4 months ago

CI pipelines can send queued and running topics, it would be nice if resultsdb could store them so they are show in bodhi.

This is related to https://pagure.io/fedora-ci/general/issue/103

To add this support, it looks like https://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/infra/ansible/roles/taskotron/resultsdb-backend/templates/settings.py.j2 needs to be updated.

Metadata Update from @mohanboddu:
- Issue tagged with: groomed, high-trouble, medium-gain

11 months ago

Metadata Update from @smooge:
- Issue priority set to: Waiting on External (was: Needs Review)

11 months ago

Note that we are waiting for an upstream to be set up and working before we change things so that we do not fork/break their work.

@smooge hi, this is a major user annoyance, could we make this work pls?

The change here should be just a change in configuration, we use it in downstream for years.

Metadata Update from @smooge:
- Issue untagged with: groomed
- Issue priority set to: Needs Review (was: Waiting on External)

7 months ago

Metadata Update from @pingou:
- Issue priority set to: Waiting on External (was: Needs Review)

7 months ago

@kevin @pingou Are there any updates on this?

I don't think it is reasonable to block a one-line fix on the ownership question for such a long time.

Can we please apply the change, while having the conversation in parallel?

@bookwar unfortunately CPE are not in a position to merge this, we have no ownership over the code and our role in CPE is simply to run the service and keep it alive. We want to actively avoid "the last one who touches it owns it" as well as the "you've done it last time you can do it again" scenarios that will come from this. I'd suggest two things:

  • Ping the actual maintainers here or raise them in a mail thread and ask them to approve / merge or seek approval to have yourself granted such permissions to solve this in the short term
  • Bring more focus to the 8415 issue above to find a longer term solution to this. I have engaged with several people on this but it has not progressed in 7 months.

I hope you understand the difficult position we are in and respect the stance that we have to make on this.

There is no code change in the proposed pull request. We are asking to change the configuration of the deployed instance of the service.

I understand your point on splitting responsibilities, but I think the current situation is different.

We prepared and proposed a patch for ansible playbooks of Fedora Infrastructure to change the configuration option of a running service. I don't see why upstream maintainers need to be involved in this decision.

(I think you tagged the wrong person above)

Our team have indicated that we require a +1 from the maintainer before merging anything like this, even if it is just a configuration change, we need that level of support and approval. Until we get that approval we are not in a position to merge.

Metadata Update from @smooge:
- Issue tagged with: dev

5 months ago

Removing the "dev" tag from this ticket as there is nothing to develop. This issue is still blocked on https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8415

Metadata Update from @pingou:
- Issue untagged with: dev

4 months ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Related Pull Requests
  • #116 Last updated 8 days ago