Closed Bug 1197223 Opened 6 years ago Closed 6 years ago

Automatic backfilling should respect hidden jobs


(Testing :: General, defect)

Not set


(Not tracked)



(Reporter: armenzg, Assigned: armenzg)


(Blocks 1 open bug)


From bug by Ryan:
> One other interesting observation I made, though, is that automatic
> backfilling/retriggering doesn't distinguish between visible and hidden jobs.
> So when a new permafailing job gets turned on (happened recently) or in general
> if you have a hidden permafailing job, you end up with a huge pile of
> backfilled jobs that are also failing in addition to auto-retries on them when
> they fail! I suspect that's a contributing factor to why we had some serious
> backlog issues last week.
Assignee: nobody → armenzg
Hi adusca,
What was the API that I could query to determine if a builder is hidden or not?

I'm also considering looking at grabbing the code from here:

It is odd to query for jobs per branch/revision when visibility is determined by repository rather than per push.
camd: is this the right way to get jobs which are hidden?
I currently get an empty list.

 from thclient import TreeherderClient
 tc = TreeherderClient()
 # result_set_id = tc.get_resultsets('mozilla-inbound')[0]['id']
 result_set_id = 21865
 jobs = tc.get_jobs('mozilla-inbound', result_set_id=result_set_id, visibility='excluded')
 print jobs

On another note, how can I *only* see hidden jobs? This shows both hidden and visible jobs:
Flags: needinfo?(cdawson)
To be clear, what I'm interested is what is the list of jobs which are considered hidden on a tree (irrelevant of which push) rather than the hidden jobs of result set.
Hey Armen-- Yeah, that should be right.  Here's an example of the URL doing this:

If you're calling that against your local instance with the client, is it possible no jobs are actually excluded for that resultset?  I'll run another experiment with the client myself...
I just tested this with result_set_id of 22039 and that seems to work ok.  Though I also get results from the result_set_id you used.  So it seems like you may be hitting an instance that doesn't have any exclusions, rather than production?
Flags: needinfo?(cdawson)
I'm going to close a bunch of bugs and start talking with sherrifs what specifically they need.
Instead of coming out with I think is needed.
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.