[Automated-testing] Structured feeds

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:48 AM <Tim.Bird at sony.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dmitry Vyukov
> >
> > This is another follow up after Lyon meetings. The main discussion was
> > mainly around email process (attestation, archival, etc):
> > https://lore.kernel.org/workflows/20191030032141.6f06c00e@lwn.net/T/#t
> >
> > I think providing info in a structured form is the key for allowing
> > building more tooling and automation at a reasonable price. So I
> > discussed with CI/Gerrit people and Konstantin how the structured
> > information can fit into the current "feeds model" and what would be
> > the next steps for bringing it to life.
> >
> > Here is the outline of the idea.
> > The current public inbox format is a git repo with refs/heads/master
> > that contains a single file "m" in RFC822 format. We add
> > refs/heads/json with a single file "j" that contains structured data
> > in JSON format. 2 separate branches b/c some clients may want to fetch
> > just one of them.
>
> Can you provide some idea (maybe a few examples) of the types of
> structured data that would  be in the json branch?

Hi Tim,

Nobody yet tried to define exact formats. Generatelly it should expose
info about patches, comments, test results in an easy to consume form.
Here are examples for patchwork, git-appraise and gerrit:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/api/patches/?order=-id
https://github.com/google/git-appraise/tree/master/schema
https://lore.kernel.org/workflows/87sgn0zr09.fsf@iris.silentflame.com/T/#m3db87b43cf5e581ba4d3a7fd5f1fbff5aea3546a
I would expect that the format would resemble these formats to
significant degree. But I guess we need to come up with something, try
to use, see what's missing/needs to be improved and iterate.
Do you have any specific recommendations or ways in which you see it
will be consumed?