Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on May 15, 2018. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@KaiRo-at
Copy link
Contributor

I tested with manual triggering of an update job that for RC builds (the only case where the repository/branch of the target and source builds differs), the ondemand_update jobs run correctly with the "mozilla-release" (target) instead of the "mozilla-beta" (source) branch name handed over.

A failing job triggered before this change is http://mm-ci-production.qa.scl3.mozilla.com:8080/job/ondemand_update/26069/console
A manual try with different branch is http://mm-ci-production.qa.scl3.mozilla.com:8080/job/ondemand_update/26070/console (and it's also green on treeherder)

The config fed to trigger-ondemand that causes the failures is https://wiki.mozilla.org/QA/Desktop_Firefox/Releases/Configs/Fx46RC1

If I see things correctly, line 198 ends up assigning the target build's branch to testrun['branch'] so we can use that instead of build_details['branch'] which is derived from /entry/ which is the source build's version.

I tested with manual triggering of an update job that for RC builds (the only case where the repository/branch of the target and source builds differs), the ondemand_update jobs run correctly with the "mozilla-release" (target) instead of the "mozilla-beta" (source) branch name handed over.

A failing job triggered before this change is http://mm-ci-production.qa.scl3.mozilla.com:8080/job/ondemand_update/26069/console
A manual try with different branch is http://mm-ci-production.qa.scl3.mozilla.com:8080/job/ondemand_update/26070/console (and it's also green on treeherder)

The config fed to trigger-ondemand that causes the failures is https://wiki.mozilla.org/QA/Desktop_Firefox/Releases/Configs/Fx46RC1

If I see things correctly, line 198 ends up assigning the *target* build's branch to testrun['branch'] so we can use that instead of build_details['branch'] which is derived from /entry/ which is the source build's version.
@KaiRo-at
Copy link
Contributor Author

r? @mjzffr

@KaiRo-at
Copy link
Contributor Author

r? @sydvicious as well to make sure what I'm doing there looks like the right thing to do :)

@sydvicious
Copy link
Contributor

I am not overly familiar with the code in question. I believe that this will work with beta, but does nightly, aurora, release and esr still work?

@KaiRo-at
Copy link
Contributor Author

trigger-ondemand is only actually used for beta, release and ESR, nightly and aurora are triggered via pulse.

@sydvicious
Copy link
Contributor

so does it work for release and ESR?

@KaiRo-at
Copy link
Contributor Author

OK, the way I phrased it can be ambiguous potentially - beta, release and ESR are using trigger-ondemand with manually set config files, while nightly and aurora use pulse for triggering.

For anything else than RCs (so for normal beta, release, or ESR builds), the branch values derived from source and target build versions are the same, that's why we didn't have errors so far - the beta channel runs for RC builds are a special case with those values differing, and this is the first time we run them with Marionette.

@KaiRo-at
Copy link
Contributor Author

So for anything else than RCs, it makes no difference from which one of /testrun/ or /build_details/ we take the branch.

@KaiRo-at
Copy link
Contributor Author

That said, I want to run a very small config file for each of a normal beta, a release, and the current RC on stage before we push this to production

@mjzffr
Copy link

mjzffr commented Apr 19, 2016

I poked around and as far as I can tell this change makes sense and won't break anything. Trepidatious r+

@sydvicious sydvicious merged commit 8316eff into mozilla:master Apr 19, 2016
@sydvicious
Copy link
Contributor

@KaiRo-at r+

@whimboo
Copy link
Contributor

whimboo commented May 3, 2016

Good catch @KaiRo-at, and thanks for the fix. I assume that everything got pushed to staging and production too.

@mjzffr
Copy link

mjzffr commented May 3, 2016

Yes, it did.

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Henrik Skupin notifications@github.com
wrote:

Good catch @KaiRo-at https://github.com/KaiRo-at, and thanks for the
fix. I assume that everything got pushed to staging and production too.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#783 (comment)

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants