RFC: Allow multiple machines per job template

[perlpunk]

Issue: https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/188310
This is just a proof of concept on how we could allow multple machines per job template in SCENARIO_DEFINITIONs.

It came up because we possibly want to run openqa-in-openqa jobs for both machines, and it's a useful feature in general.

Here it how our scenario file would look like:
https://github.com/perlpunk/os-autoinst-distri-openQA/blob/multiple-machines/scenario-definitions.yaml

Two possibilities to define machines per job template:

job_templates:

  # define traditionally as mapping key, as a string or an array of strings
  openqa_from_git:
    machine: [64bit-2G , uefi-2G]
    <<: *common
    settings:
      DESKTOP: minimalx
      OPENQA_FROM_GIT: "1"

  # define as template suffix
  openqa_from_containers@(64bit-2G,uefi2G):
    <<: *common
    settings:
      DESKTOP: minimalx
      LOAD_PYTHON_TEST_MODULES: "0"
      OPENQA_CONTAINERS: "1"
      OPENQA_FROM_GIT: "1"

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 88.23529% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 99.22%. Comparing base (c55624c) to head (19f1c78).
⚠️ Report is 168 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lib/OpenQA/Schema/Result/ScheduledProducts.pm	88.23%	2 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (88.23%) is below the target coverage (100.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6714      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.23%   99.22%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         398      398              
  Lines       40942    40957      +15     
==========================================
+ Hits        40628    40641      +13     
- Misses        314      316       +2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Martchus]

I guess this makes sense. The array syntax would be enough so maybe it would be best to only allow that. But I also don't really care as the code for allowing @(…) isn't really complicated.

[Martchus]

Maybe also remove empty machines here for the sake of consistency:

Suggested change

	@machines = @$machine;
	@machines = grep { length } @$machine;

[Martchus]

This is never used as a hash so we could avoid hashing:

Suggested change

	my %new_template = (%$template, name => $key);
	my @new_template = (%$template, name => $key);

[okurz]

Issue: https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/188310 This is just a proof of concept on how we could allow multple machines per job template in SCENARIO_DEFINITIONs.

With "allow" do you mean to add the array syntax to schedule all specified variants?

[perlpunk]

With "allow" do you mean to add the array syntax to schedule all specified variants?

Yes. Unless you specify the machine on the command line. I haven't implemented/tested that yet.

[perlpunk]

I think it would also be useful to have a default like in jobgroup templates, so that we don't have to specify any machine if it's the default.