GH-43547: [R][CI] Add recheck workflow for checking reverse dependencies on GHA

[amoeba]

Rationale for this change

See #43547.

What changes are included in this PR?

Adds two new new crossbow tasks for performing reverse dependency checking using https://github.com/r-devel/recheck:

• r-recheck-most
• r-recheck-strong

Are these changes tested?

Yes. #44523 (comment).

Are there any user-facing changes?

No.

• GitHub Issue: [R][CI] Add r-devel/recheck workflow for doing reverse dependency checks on CI #43547

Fixes #43547.

[github-actions]

⚠️ GitHub issue #43547 has been automatically assigned in GitHub to PR creator.

[amoeba]

I just pushed a fix that should make CI green across the board.

[assignUser]

Via workflow_dispatch instead of crossbow, nice. I am not sure if re-usable workflows are enabled for the apache org and we will likely have an issue with the workflow not being allow listed...

[amoeba]

Thanks for taking a look @assignUser.

Re:

Via workflow_dispatch instead of crossbow, nice.

Would this make more sense (and still be doable) as a crossbow command? Now that you mention it, it would be a bit more consistent if it were built into crossbow rather than triggered via workflow_dispatch. Seems like it'd be possible and I'm happy to tinker with that.

[assignUser]

Having it in crossbow would be more 'on-brand' for our CI and we would avoid having to allow list the workflows. You'll just need to convert it into a push triggered workflow and add an entry to tasks.yml to make it available to the bot.

[jonkeane]

Having it in crossbow would be more 'on-brand' for our CI and we would avoid having to allow list the workflows. You'll just need to convert it into a push triggered workflow and add an entry to tasks.yml to make it available to the bot.

💯 agreed with @assignUser here LMK if I can help point out places to do ^^^ I've done one or two in my day 😝

[amoeba]

I worked on this a bit tonight and, while I can submit my new crossbow job, I'm stuck at figuring out a reasonable way to get the recheck job to point at an Arrow source checkout. Since the job's workflow runs on the crossbow repo instead of arrow, recheck clones that instead of arrow and the job fails. See recheck.yml. I think the best solution might be to add support to recheck for cloning an arbitrary repo which I think might be generally useful (and therefore accepted).

[assignUser]

Thanks @amoeba Yeah, adding a repo/ref input for the checkout seems like the way to go.

[amoeba]

I've got this working now. Figuring out how all the variables get propagated was fun.

You can see the new crossbow job in action on #44523 (comment). I filed an issue against recheck and sent in a PR that adds the features we need here.

I'll mark these as ready for review again once,

1. Feature request: Support overriding repo and ref r-devel/recheck#7 is resolved
2. The workflow this PR points to is pointed at my fork and so it needs to
   a. Point to the official recheck action
   b. Point to a specific commit SHA. Anything else needed @assignUser ?
3. Consider removing other older revdepcheck stuff in the repo in favor of just having recheck

[assignUser]

Anything else needed

No that's good, as it's in crossbow we are more flexible.

[amoeba]

Great, thanks @assignUser. The upstream recheck repo merged my changes so I updated this PR to point there and point to a specific git sha. This is ready for a final review if you have a sec.

[amoeba]

Actually let me update the PR body :)

Edit: Done.

[jonkeane]

Thanks for pushing on this! One small change

[amoeba]

I think everything is done and this is ready to be approved and merged. @assignUser or @jonkeane can you take one last look and mark approval if all looks good? Thanks for the reviews!

[jonkeane]

Sorry I should have put this earlier: would you mind adding a comment about the different between most and strong? I went looking in this PR to find it (I know I could RTFM or RTFS of recheck to figure this out), but it would be lovely to have the clear for future-us

[amoeba]

Don't mind at all, that's a good idea.

[amoeba]

Added documentation in 5d3e238.

[jonkeane]

Thanks!

[amoeba]

Merged, thanks again for the reviews.

[conbench-apache-arrow]

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 3 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit f3abc68.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 1 possible false positive for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.