Open danmyway opened 1 year ago
Hi! Thanks for this issue, I get your point about having the artifacts in one place and being able to historically check them.
Currently, for Packit, the commit checks/statuses are more natural and easier for interaction; with comments, I assume we would need to implement lot of additional logic handling the comments (identifying the comment for the particular run, parsing, etc.) so that the commenting is done in a smart way.
On the other hand, as you are mentioning the dashboard, we have discussed several times we would like to improve the UX there, so that the filtering is supported and projects can easily view only their pipelines/jobs. Would that be sufficient for you?
Hello @lbarcziova, bettering the Dashboard UX would also be a viable option. However, I can see, that for some of our somewhat specific implementations/workarounds even filtering on project level might not be sufficient. For example, if you look at PR#845 under oamg/convert2rhel project some jobs do not have any Pipeline ID associated with the run, e.g. chroot OL7.9-x86_64-HVM-2023-01-05-x86_64
relates to packit/dashboard#196
Description
It would be very appreciated if packit-bot could comment on the respective pull request, providing URLs to the Testing Farm artifacts. For example:
Benefit
All URLs in one place instead of going through the individual checks gathering the artifacts. When the tests are re-run we basically lose track of any previous runs via the GitHub UI (can be accessed through packit dashboard, however the filtering abilities there are lacking right now).
Importance
More or less nice to have right now.
What is the impacted category (job)?
Testing Farm tests
Workaround
Participation