Re: Introducing salsa-status.debian.net
On 01/09/25 at 12:56 +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Am Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 01:03:19PM +0200 schrieb Alexander Wirt:
> > Am Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 06:05:12AM +0530 schrieb Aayush Raj:
> > > Greetings folks!
> > >
> > > I wanted to announce that salsa-status.debian.net is now up and running!
> > >
> > > This Status Page provides both Salsa CI users and the Salsa CI developer
> > > team with visibility into CI performance, helping identify wasteful
> > > practices, broken configurations, and optimization opportunities across the
> > > entire Debian package ecosystem.
> > >
> > > One of the main objectives is to help catch wasteful CI usage, which hasn't
> > > been possible/easy before due to lack of overview/stats.
> > >
> > > *The main features of the Salsa CI status page are:*
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> > > Real-time Pipeline Monitoring: Pipeline stats, success rates,
> > > performance trends, and related metrics.
> > > -
> > >
> > > Project Analytics: Detailed insights into projects´ CI history and
> > > configurations
> > > -
> > >
> > > Job Type Analysis: Insights into types of jobs running in and on top of
> > > Salsa CI
> > > -
> > >
> > > CI Stats & Performance: CI duration trends and resource consumption
> > > -
> > >
> > > Matrix Alerts - Automated notifications for performance degradation at
> > > https://matrix.to/#/#salsa-stats:matrix.org
> >
> > Which api endpoint do you scrape and how often?
> Ping?
Hi Alex,
AFAIK¹, the CI pipeline provided by the salsa-ci-team team² is
instrumented to collect data. See
https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/-/blob/master/salsa-ci.yml?ref_type=heads#L223
That's why people are rightfully saying that the name is not correct and
should be salsa-ci-stats.debian.net (or even
salsa-ci-team-pipeline-stats.debian.net)
I suppose that when the statistics collector endpoint learns about a
pipeline, then it polls salsa about that pipeline's status.
Lucas
¹ I'm not involved with status-status.d.n
² https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline
Reply to: