[CHG] *: persistent batches
This probably has latent bugs, and is only the start of the road to v2
(#789): PR batches are now created up-front (alongside the PR), with
PRs attached and detached as needed, hopefully such that things are
not broken (tests pass but...), this required a fair number of
ajustments to code not taking batches into account, or creating
batches on the fly.
`PullRequests.blocked` has also been updated to rely on the batch to
get its batch-mates, such that it can now be a stored field with the
right dependencies.
The next step is to better leverage this change:
- move cross-PR state up to the batch (e.g. skipchecks, priority, ...)
- add fw info to the batch, perform forward-ports batchwise in order
to avoid redundant batch-selection work, and allow altering batches
during fw (e.g. adding or removing PRs)
- use batches to select stagings
- maybe expose staging history of a batch?
2023-12-19 17:10:11 +07:00
|
|
|
from __future__ import annotations
|
|
|
|
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
import logging
|
|
|
|
import re
|
2024-10-22 15:51:47 +07:00
|
|
|
import secrets
|
2024-02-23 19:46:37 +07:00
|
|
|
from collections import defaultdict
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
from collections.abc import Iterator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
import requests
|
2024-05-17 15:51:16 +07:00
|
|
|
from psycopg2 import sql
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-05 22:10:15 +07:00
|
|
|
from odoo import models, fields, api
|
2024-02-07 21:05:33 +07:00
|
|
|
from .utils import enum
|
[CHG] forwardport: perform forward porting without working copies
The goal is to reduce maintenance and odd disk interactions &
concurrency issues, by not creating concurrent clones, not having to
push forks back in the repository, etc... it also removes the need to
cleanup "scratch" working copies though that looks not to have been an
issue in a while.
The work is done on isolated objects without using or mutating refs,
so even concurrent work should not be a problem.
This turns out to not be any more verbose (less so if anything) than
using `cherry-pick`, as that is not really designed for scripted /
non-interactive use, or for squashing commits thereafter. Working
directly with trees and commits is quite a bit cleaner even without a
ton of helpers.
Much of the credit goes to Julia Evans for [their investigation of
3-way merges as the underpinnings of cherry-picking][3-way merge],
this would have been a lot more difficult if I'd had to rediscover the
merge-base trick independently.
A few things have been changed by this:
- The old trace/stderr from cherrypick has disappeared as it's
generated by cherrypick, but for a non-interactive use it's kinda
useless anyway so I probably should have looked into removing it
earlier (I think the main use was investigation of the inflateinit
issue).
- Error on emptied commits has to be hand-rolled as `merge-tree`
couldn't care less, this is not hard but is a bit annoying.
- `merge-tree`'s conflict information only references raw commits,
which makes sense, but requires updating a bunch of tests. Then
again so does the fact that it *usually* doesn't send anything to
stderr, so that's usually disappearing.
Conveniently `merge-tree` merges the conflict marker directly in the
files / tree so we don't have to mess about moving them back out of
the repository and into the working copy as I assume cherry-pick does,
which means we don't have to try and commit them back in ether. That
is a huge part of the gain over faffing about with the working copy.
Fixes #847
[3-way merge]: https://jvns.ca/blog/2023/11/10/how-cherry-pick-and-revert-work/
2024-07-05 18:32:02 +07:00
|
|
|
from .. import git
|
[CHG] *: persistent batches
This probably has latent bugs, and is only the start of the road to v2
(#789): PR batches are now created up-front (alongside the PR), with
PRs attached and detached as needed, hopefully such that things are
not broken (tests pass but...), this required a fair number of
ajustments to code not taking batches into account, or creating
batches on the fly.
`PullRequests.blocked` has also been updated to rely on the batch to
get its batch-mates, such that it can now be a stored field with the
right dependencies.
The next step is to better leverage this change:
- move cross-PR state up to the batch (e.g. skipchecks, priority, ...)
- add fw info to the batch, perform forward-ports batchwise in order
to avoid redundant batch-selection work, and allow altering batches
during fw (e.g. adding or removing PRs)
- use batches to select stagings
- maybe expose staging history of a batch?
2023-12-19 17:10:11 +07:00
|
|
|
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
_logger = logging.getLogger(__name__)
|
|
|
|
FOOTER = '\nMore info at https://github.com/odoo/odoo/wiki/Mergebot#forward-port\n'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-05-17 15:51:16 +07:00
|
|
|
class StagingBatch(models.Model):
|
|
|
|
_name = 'runbot_merge.staging.batch'
|
|
|
|
_description = "link between batches and staging in order to maintain an " \
|
|
|
|
"ordering relationship between the batches of a staging"
|
|
|
|
_log_access = False
|
|
|
|
_order = 'id'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
runbot_merge_batch_id = fields.Many2one('runbot_merge.batch', required=True)
|
|
|
|
runbot_merge_stagings_id = fields.Many2one('runbot_merge.stagings', required=True)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
def init(self):
|
|
|
|
super().init()
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
self.env.cr.execute(sql.SQL("""
|
|
|
|
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS runbot_merge_staging_batch_idx
|
|
|
|
ON {table} (runbot_merge_stagings_id, runbot_merge_batch_id);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS runbot_merge_staging_batch_rev
|
|
|
|
ON {table} (runbot_merge_batch_id) INCLUDE (runbot_merge_stagings_id);
|
|
|
|
""").format(table=sql.Identifier(self._table)))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[CHG] *: persistent batches
This probably has latent bugs, and is only the start of the road to v2
(#789): PR batches are now created up-front (alongside the PR), with
PRs attached and detached as needed, hopefully such that things are
not broken (tests pass but...), this required a fair number of
ajustments to code not taking batches into account, or creating
batches on the fly.
`PullRequests.blocked` has also been updated to rely on the batch to
get its batch-mates, such that it can now be a stored field with the
right dependencies.
The next step is to better leverage this change:
- move cross-PR state up to the batch (e.g. skipchecks, priority, ...)
- add fw info to the batch, perform forward-ports batchwise in order
to avoid redundant batch-selection work, and allow altering batches
during fw (e.g. adding or removing PRs)
- use batches to select stagings
- maybe expose staging history of a batch?
2023-12-19 17:10:11 +07:00
|
|
|
class Batch(models.Model):
|
|
|
|
""" A batch is a "horizontal" grouping of *codependent* PRs: PRs with
|
|
|
|
the same label & target but for different repositories. These are
|
|
|
|
assumed to be part of the same "change" smeared over multiple
|
|
|
|
repositories e.g. change an API in repo1, this breaks use of that API
|
|
|
|
in repo2 which now needs to be updated.
|
|
|
|
"""
|
2024-01-23 21:57:41 +07:00
|
|
|
_name = 'runbot_merge.batch'
|
|
|
|
_description = "batch of pull request"
|
|
|
|
_inherit = ['mail.thread']
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
_parent_store = True
|
2024-07-15 20:52:08 +07:00
|
|
|
_order = "id desc"
|
[CHG] *: persistent batches
This probably has latent bugs, and is only the start of the road to v2
(#789): PR batches are now created up-front (alongside the PR), with
PRs attached and detached as needed, hopefully such that things are
not broken (tests pass but...), this required a fair number of
ajustments to code not taking batches into account, or creating
batches on the fly.
`PullRequests.blocked` has also been updated to rely on the batch to
get its batch-mates, such that it can now be a stored field with the
right dependencies.
The next step is to better leverage this change:
- move cross-PR state up to the batch (e.g. skipchecks, priority, ...)
- add fw info to the batch, perform forward-ports batchwise in order
to avoid redundant batch-selection work, and allow altering batches
during fw (e.g. adding or removing PRs)
- use batches to select stagings
- maybe expose staging history of a batch?
2023-12-19 17:10:11 +07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-15 20:52:08 +07:00
|
|
|
name = fields.Char(compute="_compute_name", search="_search_name")
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
target = fields.Many2one('runbot_merge.branch', store=True, compute='_compute_target')
|
2024-05-17 15:51:16 +07:00
|
|
|
batch_staging_ids = fields.One2many('runbot_merge.staging.batch', 'runbot_merge_batch_id')
|
|
|
|
staging_ids = fields.Many2many(
|
|
|
|
'runbot_merge.stagings',
|
|
|
|
compute="_compute_staging_ids",
|
|
|
|
context={'active_test': False},
|
|
|
|
)
|
[CHG] *: persistent batches
This probably has latent bugs, and is only the start of the road to v2
(#789): PR batches are now created up-front (alongside the PR), with
PRs attached and detached as needed, hopefully such that things are
not broken (tests pass but...), this required a fair number of
ajustments to code not taking batches into account, or creating
batches on the fly.
`PullRequests.blocked` has also been updated to rely on the batch to
get its batch-mates, such that it can now be a stored field with the
right dependencies.
The next step is to better leverage this change:
- move cross-PR state up to the batch (e.g. skipchecks, priority, ...)
- add fw info to the batch, perform forward-ports batchwise in order
to avoid redundant batch-selection work, and allow altering batches
during fw (e.g. adding or removing PRs)
- use batches to select stagings
- maybe expose staging history of a batch?
2023-12-19 17:10:11 +07:00
|
|
|
split_id = fields.Many2one('runbot_merge.split', index=True)
|
|
|
|
|
2024-04-03 17:08:04 +07:00
|
|
|
all_prs = fields.One2many('runbot_merge.pull_requests', 'batch_id')
|
|
|
|
prs = fields.One2many('runbot_merge.pull_requests', compute='_compute_open_prs', search='_search_open_prs')
|
|
|
|
active = fields.Boolean(compute='_compute_active', store=True, help="closed batches (batches containing only closed PRs)")
|
[CHG] *: persistent batches
This probably has latent bugs, and is only the start of the road to v2
(#789): PR batches are now created up-front (alongside the PR), with
PRs attached and detached as needed, hopefully such that things are
not broken (tests pass but...), this required a fair number of
ajustments to code not taking batches into account, or creating
batches on the fly.
`PullRequests.blocked` has also been updated to rely on the batch to
get its batch-mates, such that it can now be a stored field with the
right dependencies.
The next step is to better leverage this change:
- move cross-PR state up to the batch (e.g. skipchecks, priority, ...)
- add fw info to the batch, perform forward-ports batchwise in order
to avoid redundant batch-selection work, and allow altering batches
during fw (e.g. adding or removing PRs)
- use batches to select stagings
- maybe expose staging history of a batch?
2023-12-19 17:10:11 +07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-05-21 20:44:47 +07:00
|
|
|
fw_policy = fields.Selection([
|
2024-06-28 21:03:03 +07:00
|
|
|
('no', "Do not port forward"),
|
2024-05-21 20:44:47 +07:00
|
|
|
('default', "Default"),
|
|
|
|
('skipci', "Skip CI"),
|
2024-06-28 21:03:03 +07:00
|
|
|
], required=True, default="default", string="Forward Port Policy", tracking=True)
|
2024-05-21 20:44:47 +07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-01-29 20:09:22 +07:00
|
|
|
merge_date = fields.Datetime(tracking=True)
|
2024-05-24 13:36:19 +07:00
|
|
|
# having skipchecks skip both validation *and approval* makes sense because
|
|
|
|
# it's batch-wise, having to approve individual PRs is annoying
|
2024-01-23 21:57:41 +07:00
|
|
|
skipchecks = fields.Boolean(
|
|
|
|
string="Skips Checks",
|
|
|
|
default=False, tracking=True,
|
|
|
|
help="Forces entire batch to be ready, skips validation and approval",
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
cancel_staging = fields.Boolean(
|
|
|
|
string="Cancels Stagings",
|
|
|
|
default=False, tracking=True,
|
|
|
|
help="Cancels current staging on target branch when becoming ready"
|
|
|
|
)
|
2024-02-07 21:05:33 +07:00
|
|
|
priority = fields.Selection([
|
|
|
|
('default', "Default"),
|
|
|
|
('priority', "Priority"),
|
|
|
|
('alone', "Alone"),
|
2024-06-28 21:03:03 +07:00
|
|
|
], default='default', group_operator=None, required=True, tracking=True,
|
2024-02-07 21:05:33 +07:00
|
|
|
column_type=enum(_name, 'priority'),
|
|
|
|
)
|
2024-02-05 22:10:15 +07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-24 17:35:21 +07:00
|
|
|
blocked = fields.Char(store=True, compute="_compute_blocked")
|
2024-02-05 22:10:15 +07:00
|
|
|
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
# unlike on PRs, this does not get detached... ? (because batches can be
|
|
|
|
# partially detached so that's a PR-level concern)
|
2024-08-09 15:08:36 +07:00
|
|
|
parent_path = fields.Char(index=True, unaccent=False)
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
parent_id = fields.Many2one("runbot_merge.batch")
|
|
|
|
genealogy_ids = fields.Many2many(
|
|
|
|
"runbot_merge.batch",
|
|
|
|
compute="_compute_genealogy",
|
|
|
|
context={"active_test": False},
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
2024-05-17 15:51:16 +07:00
|
|
|
@api.depends('batch_staging_ids.runbot_merge_stagings_id')
|
|
|
|
def _compute_staging_ids(self):
|
|
|
|
for batch in self:
|
|
|
|
batch.staging_ids = batch.batch_staging_ids.runbot_merge_stagings_id
|
|
|
|
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
@property
|
|
|
|
def source(self):
|
|
|
|
return self.browse(map(int, self.parent_path.split('/', 1)[:1]))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
def descendants(self, include_self: bool = False) -> Iterator[Batch]:
|
|
|
|
# in DB both will prefix-match on the literal prefix then apply a
|
|
|
|
# trivial filter (even though the filter is technically unnecessary for
|
|
|
|
# the first form), doing it like this means we don't have to `- self`
|
[IMP] *: handle the addition of a new PR to a fw-ported batch
Given a batch which has been merged, and been forward-ported, to
multiple branches (because skipci was set or ci passed on the repos
the batch covers).
There might come the need to add a PR for one of the uncovered
repos. This raises the question of what to do with it, since the
forward-ports for the batch already exist it's not going to get
forwardported normally, nor may we want to, possibly?
Options are:
- don't do anything, such additions don't get ported, this is
incongruous and unexpected as by default PRs are forward-ported, and
if the batch wasn't an intermediate (but e.g. a conflict) it
probably would be ported forward
- port on merge, this allows configuring the PR properly (as it might
need its own limit) but it means further batches may get
unexpectedly merged (or at least retied) without the additional PR
even though we likely want it in
- immediately port the additional PR on creation, this makes the limit
harder or impossible to configure but it makes the *batch sequence*
more consistent
We ended up selecting the latter, it feels closer to the updates
system, and it creates more consistent batches through the
sequence. It's also technically easier to ad-hoc port a PR through a
bunch of branches than it is to update the "normal" forward-port
process to handle partial fixups.
2024-03-29 15:16:51 +07:00
|
|
|
# in the ``not include_self`` case
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
if include_self:
|
|
|
|
pattern = self.parent_path + '%'
|
|
|
|
else:
|
|
|
|
pattern = self.parent_path + '_%'
|
|
|
|
|
2024-04-03 17:08:04 +07:00
|
|
|
act = self.env.context.get('active_test', True)
|
|
|
|
return self\
|
|
|
|
.with_context(active_test=False)\
|
|
|
|
.search([("parent_path", '=like', pattern)], order="parent_path")\
|
|
|
|
.with_context(active_test=act)
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# also depends on all the descendants of the source or sth
|
|
|
|
@api.depends('parent_path')
|
|
|
|
def _compute_genealogy(self):
|
|
|
|
for batch in self:
|
|
|
|
sid = next(iter(batch.parent_path.split('/', 1)))
|
2024-04-03 17:08:04 +07:00
|
|
|
batch.genealogy_ids = self \
|
|
|
|
.with_context(active_test=False)\
|
|
|
|
.search([("parent_path", "=like", f"{sid}/%")], order="parent_path")\
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-07 21:05:33 +07:00
|
|
|
def _auto_init(self):
|
|
|
|
for field in self._fields.values():
|
|
|
|
if not isinstance(field, fields.Selection) or field.column_type[0] == 'varchar':
|
|
|
|
continue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
t = field.column_type[1]
|
|
|
|
self.env.cr.execute("SELECT FROM pg_type WHERE typname = %s", [t])
|
|
|
|
if not self.env.cr.rowcount:
|
|
|
|
self.env.cr.execute(
|
|
|
|
f"CREATE TYPE {t} AS ENUM %s",
|
|
|
|
[tuple(s for s, _ in field.selection)]
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
super()._auto_init()
|
|
|
|
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
self.env.cr.execute("""
|
|
|
|
CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS runbot_merge_batch_ready_idx
|
|
|
|
ON runbot_merge_batch (target, priority)
|
|
|
|
WHERE blocked IS NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS runbot_merge_batch_parent_id_idx
|
|
|
|
ON runbot_merge_batch (parent_id)
|
|
|
|
WHERE parent_id IS NOT NULL;
|
|
|
|
""")
|
|
|
|
|
2024-04-03 17:08:04 +07:00
|
|
|
@api.depends('all_prs.closed')
|
|
|
|
def _compute_active(self):
|
|
|
|
for b in self:
|
|
|
|
b.active = not all(p.closed for p in b.all_prs)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@api.depends('all_prs.closed')
|
|
|
|
def _compute_open_prs(self):
|
|
|
|
for b in self:
|
|
|
|
b.prs = b.all_prs.filtered(lambda p: not p.closed)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
def _search_open_prs(self, operator, value):
|
|
|
|
return [('all_prs', operator, value), ('active', '=', True)]
|
|
|
|
|
2024-03-05 18:59:58 +07:00
|
|
|
@api.depends("prs.label")
|
|
|
|
def _compute_name(self):
|
|
|
|
for batch in self:
|
|
|
|
batch.name = batch.prs[:1].label or batch.all_prs[:1].label
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-15 20:52:08 +07:00
|
|
|
def _search_name(self, operator, value):
|
|
|
|
return [('all_prs.label', operator, value)]
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-15 18:49:39 +07:00
|
|
|
@api.depends("all_prs.target", "all_prs.closed")
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
def _compute_target(self):
|
|
|
|
for batch in self:
|
2024-07-15 18:49:39 +07:00
|
|
|
targets = batch.prs.mapped('target') or batch.all_prs.mapped('target')
|
|
|
|
batch.target = targets if len(targets) == 1 else False
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-05 22:10:15 +07:00
|
|
|
@api.depends(
|
|
|
|
"merge_date",
|
2024-10-07 13:07:59 +07:00
|
|
|
"prs.error", "prs.draft",
|
2024-02-23 19:46:37 +07:00
|
|
|
"skipchecks",
|
|
|
|
"prs.status", "prs.reviewed_by", "prs.target",
|
2024-02-05 22:10:15 +07:00
|
|
|
)
|
2024-07-24 17:35:21 +07:00
|
|
|
def _compute_blocked(self):
|
2024-02-05 22:10:15 +07:00
|
|
|
for batch in self:
|
|
|
|
if batch.merge_date:
|
|
|
|
batch.blocked = "Merged."
|
2024-04-03 17:08:04 +07:00
|
|
|
elif not batch.active:
|
|
|
|
batch.blocked = "all prs are closed"
|
2024-07-24 17:35:21 +07:00
|
|
|
elif len(targets := batch.prs.mapped('target')) > 1:
|
|
|
|
batch.blocked = f"Multiple target branches: {', '.join(targets.mapped('name'))!r}"
|
2024-02-05 22:10:15 +07:00
|
|
|
elif blocking := batch.prs.filtered(
|
2024-10-07 13:07:59 +07:00
|
|
|
lambda p: p.error or p.draft
|
2024-02-05 22:10:15 +07:00
|
|
|
):
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
batch.blocked = "Pull request(s) %s blocked." % ', '.join(blocking.mapped('display_name'))
|
2024-02-05 22:10:15 +07:00
|
|
|
elif not batch.skipchecks and (unready := batch.prs.filtered(
|
|
|
|
lambda p: not (p.reviewed_by and p.status == "success")
|
|
|
|
)):
|
2024-02-12 14:51:23 +07:00
|
|
|
unreviewed = ', '.join(unready.filtered(lambda p: not p.reviewed_by).mapped('display_name'))
|
|
|
|
unvalidated = ', '.join(unready.filtered(lambda p: p.status == 'pending').mapped('display_name'))
|
|
|
|
failed = ', '.join(unready.filtered(lambda p: p.status == 'failure').mapped('display_name'))
|
|
|
|
batch.blocked = "Pull request(s) %s." % ', '.join(filter(None, [
|
|
|
|
unreviewed and f"{unreviewed} are waiting for review",
|
|
|
|
unvalidated and f"{unvalidated} are waiting for CI",
|
|
|
|
failed and f"{failed} have failed CI",
|
|
|
|
]))
|
2024-02-05 22:10:15 +07:00
|
|
|
else:
|
2024-08-01 15:15:32 +07:00
|
|
|
if batch.blocked:
|
|
|
|
self.env.ref("runbot_merge.staging_cron")._trigger()
|
|
|
|
if batch.cancel_staging:
|
|
|
|
if splits := batch.target.split_ids:
|
|
|
|
splits.unlink()
|
|
|
|
batch.target.active_staging_id.cancel(
|
|
|
|
'unstaged by %s becoming ready',
|
|
|
|
', '.join(batch.prs.mapped('display_name')),
|
|
|
|
)
|
2024-02-05 22:10:15 +07:00
|
|
|
batch.blocked = False
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
def _port_forward(self):
|
|
|
|
if not self:
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
proj = self.target.project_id
|
|
|
|
if not proj.fp_github_token:
|
|
|
|
_logger.warning(
|
|
|
|
"Can not forward-port %s (%s): no token on project %s",
|
|
|
|
self,
|
|
|
|
', '.join(self.prs.mapped('display_name')),
|
|
|
|
proj.name
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
notarget = [r.name for r in self.prs.repository if not r.fp_remote_target]
|
|
|
|
if notarget:
|
|
|
|
_logger.error(
|
|
|
|
"Can not forward-port %s (%s): repos %s don't have a forward port remote configured",
|
|
|
|
self,
|
|
|
|
', '.join(self.prs.mapped('display_name')),
|
|
|
|
', '.join(notarget),
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
all_sources = [(p.source_id or p) for p in self.prs]
|
|
|
|
all_targets = [p._find_next_target() for p in self.prs]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if all(t is None for t in all_targets):
|
|
|
|
# TODO: maybe add a feedback message?
|
|
|
|
_logger.info(
|
|
|
|
"Will not forward port %s (%s): no next target",
|
|
|
|
self,
|
|
|
|
', '.join(self.prs.mapped('display_name'))
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-23 19:46:37 +07:00
|
|
|
PRs = self.env['runbot_merge.pull_requests']
|
|
|
|
targets = defaultdict(lambda: PRs)
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
for p, t in zip(self.prs, all_targets):
|
2024-02-23 19:46:37 +07:00
|
|
|
if t:
|
|
|
|
targets[t] |= p
|
|
|
|
else:
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
_logger.info("Skip forward porting %s (of %s): no next target", p.display_name, self)
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-23 19:46:37 +07:00
|
|
|
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
# all the PRs *with a next target* should have the same, we can have PRs
|
|
|
|
# stopping forward port earlier but skipping... probably not
|
|
|
|
if len(targets) != 1:
|
2024-02-23 19:46:37 +07:00
|
|
|
for t, prs in targets.items():
|
|
|
|
linked, other = next((
|
|
|
|
(linked, other)
|
|
|
|
for other, linkeds in targets.items()
|
|
|
|
if other != t
|
|
|
|
for linked in linkeds
|
|
|
|
))
|
|
|
|
for pr in prs:
|
|
|
|
self.env.ref('runbot_merge.forwardport.failure.discrepancy')._send(
|
|
|
|
repository=pr.repository,
|
|
|
|
pull_request=pr.number,
|
|
|
|
token_field='fp_github_token',
|
|
|
|
format_args={'pr': pr, 'linked': linked, 'next': t.name, 'other': other.name},
|
|
|
|
)
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
_logger.warning(
|
|
|
|
"Cancelling forward-port of %s (%s): found different next branches (%s)",
|
|
|
|
self,
|
|
|
|
', '.join(self.prs.mapped('display_name')),
|
|
|
|
', '.join(t.name for t in targets),
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-23 19:46:37 +07:00
|
|
|
target, prs = next(iter(targets.items()))
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
# this is run by the cron, no need to check if otherwise scheduled:
|
|
|
|
# either the scheduled job is this one, or it's an other scheduling
|
|
|
|
# which will run after this one and will see the port already exists
|
|
|
|
if self.search_count([('parent_id', '=', self.id), ('target', '=', target.id)]):
|
|
|
|
_logger.warning(
|
|
|
|
"Will not forward-port %s (%s): already ported",
|
|
|
|
self,
|
2024-02-23 19:46:37 +07:00
|
|
|
', '.join(prs.mapped('display_name'))
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# the base PR is the PR with the "oldest" target
|
|
|
|
base = max(all_sources, key=lambda p: (p.target.sequence, p.target.name))
|
|
|
|
# take only the branch bit
|
|
|
|
new_branch = '%s-%s-%s-fw' % (
|
|
|
|
target.name,
|
|
|
|
base.refname,
|
2024-10-22 15:51:47 +07:00
|
|
|
secrets.token_urlsafe(3),
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
conflicts = {}
|
[CHG] forwardport: perform forward porting without working copies
The goal is to reduce maintenance and odd disk interactions &
concurrency issues, by not creating concurrent clones, not having to
push forks back in the repository, etc... it also removes the need to
cleanup "scratch" working copies though that looks not to have been an
issue in a while.
The work is done on isolated objects without using or mutating refs,
so even concurrent work should not be a problem.
This turns out to not be any more verbose (less so if anything) than
using `cherry-pick`, as that is not really designed for scripted /
non-interactive use, or for squashing commits thereafter. Working
directly with trees and commits is quite a bit cleaner even without a
ton of helpers.
Much of the credit goes to Julia Evans for [their investigation of
3-way merges as the underpinnings of cherry-picking][3-way merge],
this would have been a lot more difficult if I'd had to rediscover the
merge-base trick independently.
A few things have been changed by this:
- The old trace/stderr from cherrypick has disappeared as it's
generated by cherrypick, but for a non-interactive use it's kinda
useless anyway so I probably should have looked into removing it
earlier (I think the main use was investigation of the inflateinit
issue).
- Error on emptied commits has to be hand-rolled as `merge-tree`
couldn't care less, this is not hard but is a bit annoying.
- `merge-tree`'s conflict information only references raw commits,
which makes sense, but requires updating a bunch of tests. Then
again so does the fact that it *usually* doesn't send anything to
stderr, so that's usually disappearing.
Conveniently `merge-tree` merges the conflict marker directly in the
files / tree so we don't have to mess about moving them back out of
the repository and into the working copy as I assume cherry-pick does,
which means we don't have to try and commit them back in ether. That
is a huge part of the gain over faffing about with the working copy.
Fixes #847
[3-way merge]: https://jvns.ca/blog/2023/11/10/how-cherry-pick-and-revert-work/
2024-07-05 18:32:02 +07:00
|
|
|
for pr in prs:
|
|
|
|
repo = git.get_local(pr.repository)
|
2024-10-22 15:53:45 +07:00
|
|
|
conflicts[pr], head = pr._create_port_branch(repo, target, forward=True)
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
|
[CHG] forwardport: perform forward porting without working copies
The goal is to reduce maintenance and odd disk interactions &
concurrency issues, by not creating concurrent clones, not having to
push forks back in the repository, etc... it also removes the need to
cleanup "scratch" working copies though that looks not to have been an
issue in a while.
The work is done on isolated objects without using or mutating refs,
so even concurrent work should not be a problem.
This turns out to not be any more verbose (less so if anything) than
using `cherry-pick`, as that is not really designed for scripted /
non-interactive use, or for squashing commits thereafter. Working
directly with trees and commits is quite a bit cleaner even without a
ton of helpers.
Much of the credit goes to Julia Evans for [their investigation of
3-way merges as the underpinnings of cherry-picking][3-way merge],
this would have been a lot more difficult if I'd had to rediscover the
merge-base trick independently.
A few things have been changed by this:
- The old trace/stderr from cherrypick has disappeared as it's
generated by cherrypick, but for a non-interactive use it's kinda
useless anyway so I probably should have looked into removing it
earlier (I think the main use was investigation of the inflateinit
issue).
- Error on emptied commits has to be hand-rolled as `merge-tree`
couldn't care less, this is not hard but is a bit annoying.
- `merge-tree`'s conflict information only references raw commits,
which makes sense, but requires updating a bunch of tests. Then
again so does the fact that it *usually* doesn't send anything to
stderr, so that's usually disappearing.
Conveniently `merge-tree` merges the conflict marker directly in the
files / tree so we don't have to mess about moving them back out of
the repository and into the working copy as I assume cherry-pick does,
which means we don't have to try and commit them back in ether. That
is a huge part of the gain over faffing about with the working copy.
Fixes #847
[3-way merge]: https://jvns.ca/blog/2023/11/10/how-cherry-pick-and-revert-work/
2024-07-05 18:32:02 +07:00
|
|
|
repo.push(git.fw_url(pr.repository), f"{head}:refs/heads/{new_branch}")
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gh = requests.Session()
|
|
|
|
gh.headers['Authorization'] = 'token %s' % proj.fp_github_token
|
|
|
|
has_conflicts = any(conflicts.values())
|
|
|
|
# could create a batch here but then we'd have to update `_from_gh` to
|
|
|
|
# take a batch and then `create` to not automatically resolve batches,
|
|
|
|
# easier to not do that.
|
2024-02-23 19:46:37 +07:00
|
|
|
new_batch = PRs.browse(())
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
self.env.cr.execute('LOCK runbot_merge_pull_requests IN SHARE MODE')
|
2024-02-23 19:46:37 +07:00
|
|
|
for pr in prs:
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
owner, _ = pr.repository.fp_remote_target.split('/', 1)
|
|
|
|
source = pr.source_id or pr
|
|
|
|
root = pr.root_id
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
message = source.message + '\n\n' + '\n'.join(
|
|
|
|
"Forward-Port-Of: %s" % p.display_name
|
|
|
|
for p in root | source
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
2024-10-22 15:51:47 +07:00
|
|
|
title, body = re.fullmatch(r'(?P<title>[^\n]+)\n*(?P<body>.*)', message, flags=re.DOTALL).groups()
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
r = gh.post(f'https://api.github.com/repos/{pr.repository.name}/pulls', json={
|
|
|
|
'base': target.name,
|
|
|
|
'head': f'{owner}:{new_branch}',
|
2024-10-22 15:51:47 +07:00
|
|
|
'title': '[FW]' + ('' if title[0] == '[' else ' ') + title,
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
'body': body
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
if not r.ok:
|
|
|
|
_logger.warning("Failed to create forward-port PR for %s, deleting branches", pr.display_name)
|
|
|
|
# delete all the branches this should automatically close the
|
|
|
|
# PRs if we've created any. Using the API here is probably
|
|
|
|
# simpler than going through the working copies
|
2024-02-23 19:46:37 +07:00
|
|
|
for repo in prs.mapped('repository'):
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
d = gh.delete(f'https://api.github.com/repos/{repo.fp_remote_target}/git/refs/heads/{new_branch}')
|
|
|
|
if d.ok:
|
|
|
|
_logger.info("Deleting %s:%s=success", repo.fp_remote_target, new_branch)
|
|
|
|
else:
|
|
|
|
_logger.warning("Deleting %s:%s=%s", repo.fp_remote_target, new_branch, d.text)
|
2024-02-23 19:46:37 +07:00
|
|
|
raise RuntimeError(f"Forwardport failure: {pr.display_name} ({r.text})")
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-23 19:46:37 +07:00
|
|
|
new_pr = PRs._from_gh(r.json())
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
_logger.info("Created forward-port PR %s", new_pr)
|
|
|
|
new_batch |= new_pr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# allows PR author to close or skipci
|
|
|
|
new_pr.write({
|
|
|
|
'merge_method': pr.merge_method,
|
|
|
|
'source_id': source.id,
|
|
|
|
# only link to previous PR of sequence if cherrypick passed
|
|
|
|
'parent_id': pr.id if not has_conflicts else False,
|
[IMP] *: handle the addition of a new PR to a fw-ported batch
Given a batch which has been merged, and been forward-ported, to
multiple branches (because skipci was set or ci passed on the repos
the batch covers).
There might come the need to add a PR for one of the uncovered
repos. This raises the question of what to do with it, since the
forward-ports for the batch already exist it's not going to get
forwardported normally, nor may we want to, possibly?
Options are:
- don't do anything, such additions don't get ported, this is
incongruous and unexpected as by default PRs are forward-ported, and
if the batch wasn't an intermediate (but e.g. a conflict) it
probably would be ported forward
- port on merge, this allows configuring the PR properly (as it might
need its own limit) but it means further batches may get
unexpectedly merged (or at least retied) without the additional PR
even though we likely want it in
- immediately port the additional PR on creation, this makes the limit
harder or impossible to configure but it makes the *batch sequence*
more consistent
We ended up selecting the latter, it feels closer to the updates
system, and it creates more consistent batches through the
sequence. It's also technically easier to ad-hoc port a PR through a
bunch of branches than it is to update the "normal" forward-port
process to handle partial fixups.
2024-03-29 15:16:51 +07:00
|
|
|
'detach_reason': "conflicts:\n{}".format('\n\n'.join(
|
|
|
|
f"{out}\n{err}".strip()
|
|
|
|
for _, out, err, _ in filter(None, conflicts.values())
|
|
|
|
)) if has_conflicts else None,
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
if has_conflicts and pr.parent_id and pr.state not in ('merged', 'closed'):
|
|
|
|
self.env.ref('runbot_merge.forwardport.failure.conflict')._send(
|
|
|
|
repository=pr.repository,
|
|
|
|
pull_request=pr.number,
|
|
|
|
token_field='fp_github_token',
|
|
|
|
format_args={'source': source, 'pr': pr, 'new': new_pr, 'footer': FOOTER},
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-23 19:46:37 +07:00
|
|
|
for pr, new_pr in zip(prs, new_batch):
|
[IMP] *: handle the addition of a new PR to a fw-ported batch
Given a batch which has been merged, and been forward-ported, to
multiple branches (because skipci was set or ci passed on the repos
the batch covers).
There might come the need to add a PR for one of the uncovered
repos. This raises the question of what to do with it, since the
forward-ports for the batch already exist it's not going to get
forwardported normally, nor may we want to, possibly?
Options are:
- don't do anything, such additions don't get ported, this is
incongruous and unexpected as by default PRs are forward-ported, and
if the batch wasn't an intermediate (but e.g. a conflict) it
probably would be ported forward
- port on merge, this allows configuring the PR properly (as it might
need its own limit) but it means further batches may get
unexpectedly merged (or at least retied) without the additional PR
even though we likely want it in
- immediately port the additional PR on creation, this makes the limit
harder or impossible to configure but it makes the *batch sequence*
more consistent
We ended up selecting the latter, it feels closer to the updates
system, and it creates more consistent batches through the
sequence. It's also technically easier to ad-hoc port a PR through a
bunch of branches than it is to update the "normal" forward-port
process to handle partial fixups.
2024-03-29 15:16:51 +07:00
|
|
|
new_pr._fp_conflict_feedback(pr, conflicts)
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
labels = ['forwardport']
|
|
|
|
if has_conflicts:
|
|
|
|
labels.append('conflict')
|
|
|
|
self.env['runbot_merge.pull_requests.tagging'].create({
|
|
|
|
'repository': new_pr.repository.id,
|
|
|
|
'pull_request': new_pr.number,
|
|
|
|
'tags_add': labels,
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
new_batch = new_batch.batch_id
|
|
|
|
new_batch.parent_id = self
|
|
|
|
# try to schedule followup
|
|
|
|
new_batch._schedule_fp_followup()
|
|
|
|
return new_batch
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-28 17:22:23 +07:00
|
|
|
def _schedule_fp_followup(self, *, force_fw=False):
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
_logger = logging.getLogger(__name__).getChild('forwardport.next')
|
|
|
|
# if the PR has a parent and is CI-validated, enqueue the next PR
|
|
|
|
scheduled = self.browse(())
|
|
|
|
for batch in self:
|
|
|
|
prs = ', '.join(batch.prs.mapped('display_name'))
|
|
|
|
_logger.info('Checking if forward-port %s (%s)', batch, prs)
|
|
|
|
# in cas of conflict or update individual PRs will "lose" their
|
|
|
|
# parent, which should prevent forward porting
|
2024-06-28 17:22:23 +07:00
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
# even if we force_fw, a *followup* should still only be for forward
|
|
|
|
# ports so check that the batch has a parent (which should be the
|
|
|
|
# same thing as all the PRs having a source, kinda, but cheaper,
|
|
|
|
# it's not entirely true as technically the user could have added a
|
|
|
|
# PR to the forward ported batch
|
|
|
|
if not (batch.parent_id and force_fw or all(p.parent_id for p in batch.prs)):
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
_logger.info('-> no parent %s (%s)', batch, prs)
|
|
|
|
continue
|
2024-06-28 17:22:23 +07:00
|
|
|
if not force_fw and batch.source.fw_policy != 'skipci' \
|
2024-09-16 17:49:23 +07:00
|
|
|
and (invalid := batch.prs.filtered(lambda p: p.status != 'success')):
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
_logger.info(
|
|
|
|
'-> wrong state %s (%s)',
|
|
|
|
batch,
|
|
|
|
', '.join(f"{p.display_name}: {p.state}" for p in invalid),
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
continue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# check if we've already forward-ported this branch
|
2024-06-13 12:55:42 +07:00
|
|
|
next_target = batch._find_next_targets()
|
[CHG] *: move forward-porting over to batches
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd85186de000d074e5a7178cfeb110d15de7). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
2024-05-21 20:45:53 +07:00
|
|
|
if not next_target:
|
|
|
|
_logger.info("-> forward port done (no next target)")
|
|
|
|
continue
|
|
|
|
if len(next_target) > 1:
|
|
|
|
_logger.error(
|
|
|
|
"-> cancelling forward-port of %s (%s): inconsistent next target branch (%s)",
|
|
|
|
batch,
|
|
|
|
prs,
|
|
|
|
', '.join(next_target.mapped('name')),
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if n := self.search([
|
|
|
|
('target', '=', next_target.id),
|
|
|
|
('parent_id', '=', batch.id),
|
|
|
|
], limit=1):
|
|
|
|
_logger.info('-> already forward-ported (%s)', n)
|
|
|
|
continue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_logger.info("check pending port for %s (%s)", batch, prs)
|
|
|
|
if self.env['forwardport.batches'].search_count([('batch_id', '=', batch.id)]):
|
|
|
|
_logger.warning('-> already recorded')
|
|
|
|
continue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_logger.info('-> ok')
|
|
|
|
self.env['forwardport.batches'].create({
|
|
|
|
'batch_id': batch.id,
|
|
|
|
'source': 'fp',
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
scheduled |= batch
|
|
|
|
return scheduled
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
def _find_next_target(self):
|
|
|
|
"""Retrieves the next target from every PR, and returns it if it's the
|
|
|
|
same for all the PRs which have one (PRs without a next target are
|
|
|
|
ignored, this is considered acceptable).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the next targets are inconsistent, returns no next target.
|
|
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
next_target = self._find_next_targets()
|
|
|
|
if len(next_target) == 1:
|
|
|
|
return next_target
|
|
|
|
else:
|
|
|
|
return self.env['runbot_merge.branch'].browse(())
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
def _find_next_targets(self):
|
|
|
|
return self.prs.mapped(lambda p: p._find_next_target() or self.env['runbot_merge.branch'])
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
def write(self, vals):
|
|
|
|
if vals.get('merge_date'):
|
|
|
|
# TODO: remove condition when everything is merged
|
|
|
|
remover = self.env.get('forwardport.branch_remover')
|
|
|
|
if remover is not None:
|
|
|
|
remover.create([
|
|
|
|
{'pr_id': p.id}
|
|
|
|
for b in self
|
|
|
|
if not b.merge_date
|
|
|
|
for p in b.prs
|
|
|
|
])
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if vals.get('fw_policy') == 'skipci':
|
|
|
|
nonskip = self.filtered(lambda b: b.fw_policy != 'skipci')
|
|
|
|
else:
|
|
|
|
nonskip = self.browse(())
|
|
|
|
super().write(vals)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# if we change the policy to skip CI, schedule followups on merged
|
|
|
|
# batches which were not previously marked as skipping CI
|
|
|
|
if nonskip:
|
|
|
|
toggled = nonskip.filtered(lambda b: b.merge_date)
|
|
|
|
tips = toggled.mapped(lambda b: b.genealogy_ids[-1:])
|
|
|
|
for tip in tips:
|
|
|
|
tip._schedule_fp_followup()
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return True
|
2024-02-23 19:46:37 +07:00
|
|
|
|
2024-05-17 15:51:16 +07:00
|
|
|
@api.ondelete(at_uninstall=True)
|
|
|
|
def _on_delete_clear_stagings(self):
|
|
|
|
self.batch_staging_ids.unlink()
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-23 19:46:37 +07:00
|
|
|
def unlink(self):
|
|
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
batches can be unlinked if they:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- have run out of PRs
|
|
|
|
- and don't have a parent batch (which is not being deleted)
|
|
|
|
- and don't have a child batch (which is not being deleted)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is to keep track of forward port histories at the batch level
|
|
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
unlinkable = self.filtered(
|
|
|
|
lambda b: not (b.prs or (b.parent_id - self) or (self.search([('parent_id', '=', b.id)]) - self))
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
return super(Batch, unlinkable).unlink()
|