Re: [UDD] Is there any information about failed autopkgtest in UDD?

[Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org>]

Hi Paul,

On Sun, Apr 05, 2020 at 09:20:21PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > For example
> > that file contains some instances of deepnano but only as a rdepends of
> > theano:
> 
> deepnano is indeed a bad example as it is blacklisted in all suites and
> all architectures: https://ci.debian.net/status/blacklist/ because of
> https://bugs.debian.org/921566 (parse-able source:
> https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/debian-ci-config/-/blob/master/cookbooks/debci/files/default/blacklist)
> ...
> I don't think so because it is blacklisted.
> 
> > for all source packages (in the same way as for deepnano) which seems to
> > be no straightforward way.  I wonder whether you could drop some easily
> > parsable file containing
> > 
> > 	source	architecture	pass	version	version_that_has_passed_before
> 
> You're missing the suite here. So, we already have that info, you just
> need to loop over suite/arch. It's really in the json I already
> mentioned: packages.json. Please use that.

OK, I'm using that.  Its way more close to what I need.  I simply
started with your first hint. :-)

Do you see any chance to also mention blacklisted packages in
packages.json?
 
The json file contains the following values:

	'run_id',
	'created_at',
	'updated_at',
	'suite',
	'arch',
	'package',    ## that field will be named 'source' in UDD!
	'version',
	'trigger',
	'status',
	'requestor',
	'pin_packages',
	'worker',
	'date',
	'duration_seconds',
	'last_pass_date',
	'last_pass_version',
	'message',
	'previous_status',
	'duration_human',
	'blame',

I would consider to simply take over all these values as columns.
Is there any documentation for these fields?

I would parse these fields from all files I get via


#!/bin/sh

RELEASES="stable
          testing
          unstable
         "

ARCHS="amd64
       arm64
       ppc64el
      "

for release in $RELEASES ; do
    for arch in $ARCHS ; do
       wget https://ci.debian.net/data/status/${release}/${arch}/packages.json -O packages_${release}_${arch}.json
    done
done


Would you consider this a sensible approach for an UDD gatherer?
May be you consider some fields as really restricted to some
special applications and nobody would ever consider querying
UDD for it?

Kind regards

    Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de