1520170 - Add support for renaming a test or subtest

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Tree Management :: Perfherder, enhancement)

Description

[Dave Hunt [:davehunt] [he/him] ⌚BST]

In bug 1520168 we would like to rename tests to improve clarity of what is measured. In bug 1517512 long test/subtest names are causing UX issues. Let's explore how we can support renaming tests for data that already exists in Perfherder without losing the ability to alert on regressions/improvements that occur between the test's old and new names.

Comment 1

[Dave Hunt [:davehunt] [he/him] ⌚BST]

:igoldan could you look into this? I don't think it needs to be a polished solution as I don't expect this to be something we'll need to do often. Simply documenting manual steps to follow would be enough.

From IRC:

<davehunt> igoldan: what's the impact of changing a test name in data submitted to perfherder?
<davehunt> would it prevent us detecting regressions for that test/subtest
<igoldan> yes
<davehunt> until there is enough new data
<igoldan> that's right
<davehunt> okay, any way around that?
<igoldan> not sure; maybe duplicate the data?
<igoldan> and after a couple of days turn of the data for the old test name?

Comment 2

[William Lachance (:wlach)]

You could create a management command to re-assign the datums to the new signature id.

In django speak, this operation would look like this:

PerformanceDatum.objects.filter(signature_id=1234).update(signature_id=5678)

It should be pretty fast.

Comment 3

[Ionuț Goldan [:igoldan]]

(In reply to William Lachance (:wlach) (use needinfo!) from comment #2)

You could create a management command to re-assign the datums to the new signature id.

In django speak, this operation would look like this:

PerformanceDatum.objects.filter(signature_id=1234).update(signature_id=5678)

It should be pretty fast.

I guess we'll use this command directly on production, right? Basically, provide :edmorley the signature ids and ask him to run it, once we need to do the rename?

Putting something like this in the UI can be disastrous. At least without proper authorization rights.

Comment 4

[William Lachance (:wlach)]

(In reply to Ionuț Goldan [:igoldan], Performance Sheriffing from comment #3)

I guess we'll use this command directly on production, right? Basically, provide :edmorley the signature ids and ask him to run it, once we need to do the rename?

Putting something like this in the UI can be disastrous. At least without proper authorization rights.

Yeah definitely, this should be a management command run by an admin, not something exposed via the UI.

Comment 5

[Ionuț Goldan [:igoldan]]

We should be doing the same for the PerformanceAlerts:

PerformanceDatum.objects.filter(signature_id=1234).update(signature_id=5678)

Comment 6

[GitHub Bugzilla PR Linker]

Attachment: Link to GitHub pull-request: https://github.com/mozilla/treeherder/pull/4466

Comment 7

[Treeherder GitHub Bugbot]

Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/mozilla/treeherder

https://github.com/mozilla/treeherder/commit/4395e496747d944fc00fa182620ae572ba850b5a
Bug 1520170 - Add basic reassignment mechanics