-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 168
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Can use of the "resume build" button be tracked? #1969
Comments
I did some grepping on the CI machine and it looks like there is a signifier but it doesn't look like that shows up on the UI.
For example, in node-test-commit-linux, the 30253 build has:
If we look at https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-linux/30253/, it's not obvious that this is anything special, but flip to https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-linux/30251/, the one linked in the config, we find the identical gitref and some failures. #30253, #30251 is not, these tests are flaky. Complications:
|
FYI here's how they can be found, and the list of resumed builds in node-test-commit-linux in the last week:
|
This issue is stale because it has been open many days with no activity. It will be closed soon unless the stale label is removed or a comment is made. |
Detecting flakiness of builds is currently distributed to human beings, since if a PR fails to build it isn't necessarily a problem with flaky tests or flaky infrastructure... it could be the PR has a problem.
It occurs to me that there is a case where we can be pretty sure that the problem isn't the PR, its when the build is "resumed", and the same SHA builds sucessfully. This could mean that a change introduced in the PR is actually flaky, becuase it only sometimes passes, but humans usually interpret this as "my PR is good, something else was flaky" , which is also the interpretation of node-core-utils.
Is it possible to get from Jenkins a report on when builds were resumed, and what specifically passed on resume that had failed last time?
It strikes me it might be a gold mine for fixing flakiness in our CI.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: