Skip to content

Some updates to the Crossbow report #92

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

Merged
merged 19 commits into from
Apr 23, 2025
Merged

Some updates to the Crossbow report #92

merged 19 commits into from
Apr 23, 2025

Conversation

jonkeane
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonkeane jonkeane commented Apr 20, 2025

It's probably easiest to review by commit, or at least from after the first commit (which is lots of diff, but that's just letting air control the formatting).

A few notable changes:

  • Fixed a bug (that I introduced!) where failures would need to fail for at least two days before they show up. This was an attempt to ignore tasks that hadn't run in a few days (since when we disable failing builds they would otherwise show up there). This is now correct.
  • Added some tests for the functions file to catch things like ^^^
  • Adjusted spacing, sorting, and filtering of the failures table. It will now show at least 25 jobs (even when fewer than that fail), and it will pull all failures regardless of task type up to the top (we were sorting by task type and then failure, so we would get packaging failures, then packaging successes, test failures, test success etc. instead of: all failures: packaging, then testing, etc. then all successes: packaging, then testing, etc.)
  • Bump renv.lock

cc @boshek @amoeba @assignUser

Some actual arrow_build_table tests, a CI job

r 4.4 to 4.5

more imports, more test

More test

Attempt to use PPPM for binaries

More minimal CI job?

Also need working directory for renv?

Do actually need system deps

update renv

Call it cran?

is PPM actually the magic?
Comment on lines +1 to +5
library(tibble)
library(dplyr)
library(lubridate)
library(glue)
library(tidyr)
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We get these already in the quarto doc, and this does smell a little funny in a script, but makes testing much easier so I think isn't so bad. Alternatively we could us :: for all of the functions used by these in this cript.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fine by me. Doesn't smell too funny to me :)

@assignUser
Copy link
Contributor

Oh awesome, thanks! Will review tomorrow!

Copy link
Contributor

@boshek boshek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A couple small comments. Thank you for this, especially the tests.

Comment on lines +1 to +5
library(tibble)
library(dplyr)
library(lubridate)
library(glue)
library(tidyr)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fine by me. Doesn't smell too funny to me :)

df$arrow_commit[df$fail_label == label]
}

arrow_build_table <- function(nightly_data, type, task, to_day = today()) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

When I saw this I thought the to_day was actually in the form of to_* thinking that it did something like that. What about something like current_day?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Heh I was being a little cheeky, but yeah readable is more important :P

filter(fails_plus_one <= 9 | grepl("failure|build", fail_label))

## inner_join to ordered data
# Join the failure timeline labels with the actual build data
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for these comments ❤️

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Mostly thank Claude :P But in truth I had Claude comment and then went and heavily edited.

@jonkeane jonkeane merged commit c38db4f into main Apr 23, 2025
3 checks passed
@jonkeane jonkeane deleted the update_report branch April 23, 2025 01:25
@raulcd
Copy link
Collaborator

raulcd commented Apr 23, 2025

Thanks for this @jonkeane !

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants