Re: Probable CF bot degradation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 1:58 AM Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would you know how long the expected bitrot re-check period for CF
> entries that haven't been updated is, or could the bitrot-checking
> queue be displayed somewhere to indicate the position of a patch in
> this queue?

I see that your patches were eventually retested.

It was set to try to recheck every ~48 hours, though it couldn't quite
always achieve that when the total number of eligible submissions is
too large.  In this case it had stalled for too long after the github
outage, which I'm going to try to improve.  The reason for the 48+
hour cycle is the Windows tests now take ~25 minutes (since we started
actually running all the tests on that platform), and we could only
have two Windows tasts running at a time in practice, because the
limit for Windows was 8 CPUs, and we use 4 for each task, which means
we could only test ~115 branches per day, or actually a shade fewer
because it's pretty dumb and only wakes up once a minute to decide
what to do, and we currently have 242 submissions (though some don't
apply, those are free, so the number varies over time...).  There are
limits on the Unixes too but they are more generous, and the Unix
tests only take 4-10 minutes, so we can ignore that for now, it's all
down to Windows.

I had been meaning to stump up the USD$10/month it costs to double the
CPU limits from the basic free Cirrus account, and I've just now done
that and told cfbot it's allowed to test 4 branches at once and to try
to test every branch every 24 hours.  Let's see how that goes.

Here's hoping we can cut down the time it takes to run the tests on
Windows... there's some really dumb stuff happening there.  Top items
I'm aware of:  (1) general lack of test concurrency, (2) exec'ing new
backends is glacially slow on that OS but we do it for every SQL
statement in the TAP tests and every regression test script (I have
some patches for this to share after the code freeze).

> Additionally, are there plans to validate commits of the main branch
> before using them as a base for CF entries, so that "bad" commits on
> master won't impact CFbot results as easy?

How do you see this working?

I have wondered about some kind of way to click a button to say "do
this one again now", but I guess that sort of user interaction should
ideally happen after merging this thing into the Commitfest app,
because it already has auth, and interactive Python/Django web stuff.