On Jun 16, 2019, at 2:14 PM, Darin Adler <darin@apple.com> wrote:

On Jun 15, 2019, at 9:13 PM, Aakash Jain <aakash_jain@apple.com> wrote:

1) Do not upload archive (for layout-test-results) on bugzilla, instead upload it to another server, unzip it and post a link to the results.html.
Pros:
a) Engineers won't have to download the attachment, unzip it, look for failures, and then delete it from their disk. They can simply click the url to view the results. 
b) This approach will also reduce 2 comments per failure to 1 comment. Currently there are two comments per failure, one for failure details, second for bugzilla attachment.

Great improvement to do this. The most confusing thing about build bot comments is all the “creation of attachments” extra text with things like “attachment number” and “patch".

However, it’s really nice that I can download a directory full of test results easily. I’d like to see the EWS website still have that feature.

Sure, will keep an option to download the test results archive as well.


4) When a patch becomes 'obsolete', tag the corresponding EWS comments as 'obsolete', so that they will be hidden.

Incredibly valuable.

5) Do not comment on bugzilla bug at all

I think this makes sense. I don’t see a reason that test results need to be comments. I think the “red bubble” in EWS already calls someone’s attention to failures.

What do you think about comments for 'Style' failures, is that ok to keep, or should we remove them as well?

If we want to augment it, we should think of what we are aiming at. I do find it useful to see which tests are failing, and when I click on the red bubble I don’t see that information. I have to click once to see the “log of activities” then click on “results”, then see a confusing giant file with lots of other information. At the bottom of that file the one thing I want to know.

A better hierarchy is to put that “what new tests are failing” summary right t the top and let the logs be fallbacks, not the primary place to see the features.

This brings another interesting question, what page should be displayed on clicking an EWS bubble?

a) old EWS style page, e.g.: https://webkit-queues.webkit.org/patch/362845/ios-sim-ews. This does have deficiencies like you mentioned.

b) Buildbot page, e.g.: https://ews-build.webkit.org/#/builders/3/builds/414, currently this is new EWS behavior (but this doesn't cover the case when there are multiple builds (e.g.: retries) for a patch on a given queue).

c) Newly designed page which shows the summary of failures, have link(s) to the Buildbot page(s), have link to download test result archives, and maybe summary of major build steps which were executed. More feedback regarding the design of this page would be useful.


instead send email to the author of the patch.

Why? I don’t think this should send any emails at all, unless the person requested it.

ok


Pros: less noisy, also this will allow to include more detailed information about the failure in email.

I think the more detailed information should be on the webpage, not in an email.

Cons: reviewers would have to click status-bubbles to see the failures, failure information is not immediately present in the comments.

I think we should start with this approach, eliminating the comments entirely.

Sure, let's do this. I wouldn't change the old EWS (which is being replaced), but new EWS will have this behavior.


— Darin