Sheriff-o-matic: Display snoozed failure groups in a separate stream

Sheriff-o-matic: Display snoozed failure groups in a separate stream

Adds a category to ct-failure-group and enables ct-failure-stream to filter
to a single category.

Ports the previously broken ct-failure-stream-tests to mocha in order to
add new tests.

NOTRY=true
BUG=400397, 399967, 400387
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=180314

[ojan, 2014-08-11 03:43:35]

https://codereview.chromium.org/455263002/diff/1/Tools/GardeningServer/ui/ct-...
File Tools/GardeningServer/ui/ct-failure-stream.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/455263002/diff/1/Tools/GardeningServer/ui/ct-...
Tools/GardeningServer/ui/ct-failure-stream.html:25: <ct-failure-card group="{{
group }}" commits="{{ commits }}" tree="{{ tree }}"></ct-failure-card>
Can you also add ct-failure-stream tests? Just something basic that verifies
that you do/don't get ct-failure-cards in the right cases. Or, if you end up
making the change I'm requesting below, then you wouldn't be modifying this
file, but would need ct-unexpected-failures tests, which I'd be willing to leave
as a FIXME on until crbug.com/400394 is resolved since it's hard to mock out
ct-failure-analyzer.

https://codereview.chromium.org/455263002/diff/1/Tools/GardeningServer/ui/ct-...
File Tools/GardeningServer/ui/ct-unexpected-failures.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/455263002/diff/1/Tools/GardeningServer/ui/ct-...
Tools/GardeningServer/ui/ct-unexpected-failures.html:38: <ct-failure-stream
category="snoozed" groups="{{ failures[tree] }}" commits="{{ revisionLog }}"
tree="{{ tree }}"></ct-failure-stream>
I was picturing that we'd change the model (as created by ct-failure-analyzer)
so that we have a list of failures per category and then only pass in the right
groups to each ct-failure-stream. So, we'd have failures[tree][category]. An
advantage of that approach is that it makes it easy to do the FIXME you
currently have in ct-failure-stream.

<template if="{{ failures[tree].default.length }}">
    <ct-failure-stream groups="{{ failures[tree].default }}" commits="{{
revisionLog }}" tree="{{ tree }}"></ct-failure-stream>
</template>
<template if="{{ failures[tree].snoozed.length }}">
    <h2>Snoozed failures</h2>
    <ct-failure-stream groups="{{ failures[tree].default }}" commits="{{
revisionLog }}" tree="{{ tree }}"></ct-failure-stream>
</template>

[dstockwell, 2014-08-14 23:20:33]

https://codereview.chromium.org/455263002/diff/1/Tools/GardeningServer/ui/ct-...
File Tools/GardeningServer/ui/ct-unexpected-failures.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/455263002/diff/1/Tools/GardeningServer/ui/ct-...
Tools/GardeningServer/ui/ct-unexpected-failures.html:38: <ct-failure-stream
category="snoozed" groups="{{ failures[tree] }}" commits="{{ revisionLog }}"
tree="{{ tree }}"></ct-failure-stream>
On 2014/08/11 03:43:35, ojan-only-code-yellow-reviews wrote:
> I was picturing that we'd change the model (as created by ct-failure-analyzer)
> so that we have a list of failures per category and then only pass in the
right
> groups to each ct-failure-stream. So, we'd have failures[tree][category]. An
> advantage of that approach is that it makes it easy to do the FIXME you
> currently have in ct-failure-stream.

This would seem to complicate the model somewhat, when a failure group changes
category it needs to move between trees.

I don't think that the failure-group should be responsible for changing its
container, which would likely mean we need to introduce a model object to
represent failures for a given tree -- that could monitor (via observe) the
categories of its child failure groups and move them between category buckets.
WDYT?

[ojan, 2014-08-14 23:29:51]

lgtm. We can try this for now and see how it goes. I agree that it does keep the
model simpler.

Before committing, can you add ct-failure-stream tests with different categories
(e.g. check that you get the right ct-failure-cards)?

[dstockwell, 2014-08-15 02:09:51]

On 2014/08/14 23:29:51, ojan-only-code-yellow-reviews wrote:
> lgtm. We can try this for now and see how it goes. I agree that it does keep
the
> model simpler.
> 
> Before committing, can you add ct-failure-stream tests with different
categories
> (e.g. check that you get the right ct-failure-cards)?

Done!

[dstockwell, 2014-08-15 02:10:50]

The CQ bit was checked by dstockwell@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-15 02:11:37]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/dstockwell@chromium.org/455263002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-15 02:13:08]

Committed patchset #2 (20001) as 180314