928051 - Make data from B2G partner builds appear in reports_clean and friends

Reporter

Description

•

11 years ago

To make Socorro reports actually usable for B2G, we need to make data from partner builds appear in reports_clean and friends. As Socorro is very set in its ways of what to call "clean", we run into multiple issues here right now: 1) We don't have FTP scraping info for those builds and we can't count on getting that data (we may get some but that's very long-term). We need to figure out how to add at least version information without getting the data in automated fashion and keep versions valid for their supported period (bug 915257 is one failure of the latter). 2) Partners use version/channel combinations that do not fit our standards, e.g. in https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/1a2dae29-7a0d-4a81-818f-561b22131016 where a version number of "18.0" has "nightly" as the channel instead of the "release-*" or "beta"+known-buildid we'd expect (we are trying to get them to adopt something we do understand, see e.g. https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/17cd1093-d6d3-4e2a-a2d1-450a72131010 from some partner QA testing). 3) The version field does not have the version that people actually care about, as what they care about is the B2G_OS_Version field which is not even a completely pure version number, see e.g. https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/635dcd6f-989c-44cd-8710-acde62131016 - ideally we'd report by that number instead of the Gecko version we're seeing in the version field right now.

Robert Helmer [:rhelmer]

Assignee

Comment 1

•

11 years ago

(In reply to Robert Kaiser (:kairo@mozilla.com) from comment #0) > 1) We don't have FTP scraping info for those builds and we can't count on > getting that data (we may get some but that's very long-term). We need to > figure out how to add at least version information without getting the data > in automated fashion and keep versions valid for their supported period (bug > 915257 is one failure of the latter). Being able to do this automated or via Socorro UI should be simple (there's a postgres function for it, simply adds a row to releases_raw table), but it's not clear to me how that would be automated... would this be something partners would do, or they would send us the info and we'd put it in? > 2) Partners use version/channel combinations that do not fit our standards, > e.g. in > https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/1a2dae29-7a0d-4a81-818f- > 561b22131016 where a version number of "18.0" has "nightly" as the channel > instead of the "release-*" or "beta"+known-buildid we'd expect (we are > trying to get them to adopt something we do understand, see e.g. > https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/17cd1093-d6d3-4e2a-a2d1- > 450a72131010 from some partner QA testing). OK I like the idea of putting in mapping for stuff that we know is wrong, while working with partners to get it correct. > 3) The version field does not have the version that people actually care > about, as what they care about is the B2G_OS_Version field which is not even > a completely pure version number, see e.g. > https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/635dcd6f-989c-44cd-8710- > acde62131016 - ideally we'd report by that number instead of the Gecko > version we're seeing in the version field right now. We *could* just map Version to B2G_OS_Version (and create a "Gecko_Version" or something to put the number that's currently sent as Version) - this would probably be less work overall. We should look into adding support for products that have multiple version numbers in a more generic way, might be a similar amount of work and I suspect the end result would make more sense.

Robert Kaiser

Reporter

Comment 2

•

11 years ago

(In reply to Robert Helmer [:rhelmer] from comment #1) > Being able to do this automated or via Socorro UI should be simple (there's > a postgres function for it, simply adds a row to releases_raw table), but > it's not clear to me how that would be automated... would this be something > partners would do, or they would send us the info and we'd put it in? Yes, I cannot see any automation there as well right now, I think it's something we need to do in some kind of manual (UI?) fashion, unfortunately. > OK I like the idea of putting in mapping for stuff that we know is wrong, > while working with partners to get it correct. If we can do it, that surely would be helpful. > We *could* just map Version to B2G_OS_Version (and create a "Gecko_Version" > or something to put the number that's currently sent as Version) - this > would probably be less work overall. We should look into adding support for > products that have multiple version numbers in a more generic way, might be > a similar amount of work and I suspect the end result would make more sense. You surely have a better idea what's technically feasible there.

Robert Helmer [:rhelmer]

Assignee

Comment 3

•

11 years ago

(In reply to Robert Kaiser (:kairo@mozilla.com) from comment #2) > (In reply to Robert Helmer [:rhelmer] from comment #1) > > We *could* just map Version to B2G_OS_Version (and create a "Gecko_Version" > > or something to put the number that's currently sent as Version) - this > > would probably be less work overall. We should look into adding support for > > products that have multiple version numbers in a more generic way, might be > > a similar amount of work and I suspect the end result would make more sense. > > You surely have a better idea what's technically feasible there. This is all deep within the stored procedures, so I'll defer to Selena here.

Flags: needinfo?(sdeckelmann)