Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
tryjob on branch artifacts from 2 builds stepped on each other as the -b# is always -b0
Reported by
vpalatin@chromium.org,
Jun 21 2018
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionI ran the following sequence: - trigger a tryjob on the firmware-twinkie-9628.B branch with the following command: cros tryjob -g "*511132" -b firmware-twinkie-9628.B falco-firmware - it did the following successful build : https://ci.chromium.org/p/chromeos/builders/luci.chromeos.general/Prod/b8943110035792562064 - download the resulting firmware artifacts: https://storage.cloud.google.com/chromeos-image-archive/trybot-falco-firmware/R61-9628.1.0-b0/firmware_from_source.tar.bz2 (it has the proper content: twinkie/ec.bin with version twinkie_v1.11.20-005227d8f) - submit a CL on the firmware-twinkie-9628.B branch : http://crrev.com/c/790250 - trigger another tryjob on the firmware-twinkie-9628.B branch with the same command: cros tryjob -g "*511132" -b firmware-twinkie-9628.B falco-firmware - it did the following successful build : https://ci.chromium.org/p/chromeos/builders/luci.chromeos.general/Prod/b8943103093031290784 - download the resulting firmware artifacts: https://storage.cloud.google.com/chromeos-image-archive/trybot-falco-firmware/R61-9628.1.0-b0/firmware_from_source.tar.bz2 (it has the proper updated content: twinkie/ec.bin with version twinkie_v1.11.21-3e33e08af) What went wrong: - Both builds has the SAME number: R61-9628.1.0-b0 - they are using the same gs directory to store the artifacts, so as soon as the second build is done, the first artifacts are LOST.
,
Jun 21 2018
Yes, Jason, that's the problem. Newer branches use a CIDB ID instead of a builderbot run number. This issue will only happen with firmware branches, but it's not easy to fix there, because the fixes need to be applied per-branch, and will have an increasing number of dependencies. The firmware build proposal I'm investigating would fix this problem, if it can be made to work at all.
,
Jun 21 2018
alternatively, rather than just pick -b0 all the time, we could at least pick a datestamp ?
,
Jun 21 2018
If you change the suffix to anything other than "-b%d" a bunch of code will break. The bigger problem is that that code is embedded in every firmware branch, so any fix would have to be applied to every branch.
,
Jun 21 2018
If we have a bug tracking the Firmware Branch proposal, let's dupe this to that one.
,
Jun 21 2018
,
Jun 22 2018
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by jclinton@chromium.org
, Jun 21 2018Status: Available (was: Untriaged)