On #509, the rebasing process was changed to forcefully update the
commit date of the commits, in order to force trigger builds.
However when squashing was re-enabled for #539 for some fool reason it
implemented its own bespoke rebasing (despite that not actually saving
any API call that I can see), meaning it did *not* update the commit
date. As such, an old commit being squashed would not get picked up by
the runbot, which is what happened to odoo/documentation#1226 (which
ultimately had to be hand-rebased after some confusion as to why it
did not work).
Update `_stage_squash` to go through `rebase` the normal way, also
update `rebase` to pop the commit date entirely instead of setting it
manually, and update the squashing test to check that the commit date
gets properly updated.
Fixes#579, closes#582
Currently limited to release/freeze PRs: it can be difficult to be
sure the right PR was selected then, and a mistake there seems more
impactful than in the PRs being waited for?
Note: adds a test to make sure I don't break the check that all
release PRs must have the same label (be linked). This was
already safe, and in a way this PR adds convenience but not
really safety, but better sure than sorry.
- add flag to not select repos for freezing
- allow removing more repositories from the wizard
- when performing the freeze, only create branches for the selected
repos
The freeze wizard was implemented using a single action to open and
validate the dialog.
This was a mistake, as it means if there are no errors left (e.g. all
the PRs being waited for are now validated) trying to view the freeze
wizard will immediately validate it and commit the freeze, which is
unexpected, surprising, and unsafe e.g.
- open wizard
- add freeze prs
- add a required pr or two
- close and go do something else
- be told that more PRs need to be waited for
- reopen wizard
- oops freeze is done
So split the "open action" part of `action_freeze` into opening the
action and performing the freeze. The "freeze" / "view freeze" button
on the project only activates the latter, and the actual freeze
operation is only triggered from the wizard's "Freeze" button.
Part of #559.
Provides a less manual interface for creating the freeze:
* takes the name of the branch to create
* takes any number of PRs which must be part of the freeze
* takes PRs representing the HEADs of the new branches
Then essentially takes care of the test.
Implementation of the actual wizard is not trivial but fairly
straightforward and linear, biggest issue is not being able to
`project_id.branch_ids[1]` to get the new branch, not sure why but it
seems to ignore the ordering, clearing the cache doens't fix it.
When creating the branches, add a sleep after each one for secondary
rate limiting purposes. Same when deleting branches.
Also the forwardbot has been updated to disable the forwardport cron
while a freeze is ongoing, this simplifies the freezing process.
Note: after recommendation of @aab-odoo, tried using `_applyChanges`
in `_checkState` but it simply did not work: the two relational fields
got completely frozen and were impossible to update, which is less
than ideal. Oh well, hopefully it works well enough like this for now.
To prep for the addition of the freeze wizard:
* move projects out of `pull_requests.py`
* then realize half the methods there have no relation to projects and
move them to more relevant places in `pull_requests.py`
* update corresponding crons (and tests using those crons) as the
methods have changed model, and the cron definitions thus need to be
updated
* split update to labels out of sending feedback comments while at it:
labels are not used much during tests so their manipulation can be
avoided; and labels are not as urgent as feedback so the crons can
be quite a bit slower
* move the project view out of `mergebot.xml` as well
When a commit is lacking the purpose (?) tag e.g. `[FIX]`, `[IMP]`,
..., a normal commit message of the form `<module>: <info>` marches
the looks of a git pseudo-header.
This results in a commit rewrite rejiggering the entire thing and
breaking the message by moving the title to the pseudo-headers and
mis-promoting either the `closes` line of body content to "title",
resulting in a really crappy commit message
e.g. odoo/odoo@d4aa9ad031.
Update the commit rewriting procedure to specifically skip the title
line, and re-inject it without processing in the output.
Fixes#540
Re-introduce a "squash" mode solely for the purpose of fixing up
commit messages without having to go and edit them: for now "squash"
only works for single-commit PRs, acts as a normal
integration (`rebase-ff`) *but* replaces the message of the commit
itself by that of the PR, similar to the `merge` modes.
This means maintainers can update commit messages to standards by
editing the PR description (though this is obviously sensible to
edition races with the original author).
Fixes#539
If a reviewer doesn't have an email set, the Signed-Off-By is an
`@users.noreply.github.com` address which just looks weird in the
final result.
Initially the thinking was that emails would be required for users to
*be* reviewers or self-reviewers, but since those are now o2ms / m2ms
it's a bit of a pain in the ass.
Instead, provide an action to easily try and fetch the public email of
a user from github.
Fixes#531
Since we have the model fields loaded up, we can just check into that
and assume anything that's not a field is a method.
That avoids having to go through `_call`, making things way less awkward.
After internal discussions it was concluded that this didn't extend
much more trust than allowing authors to accept their single-PR
commits without additional supervisions, and it would avoid some
inconveniences and PR-blocking.
Fixes#69 (nice)
Because sometimes github updates are missed (usually because github
never triggers it), it's possible for the mergebot's view of a PR
description to be incorrect. In that case, the PR may get merged with
the wrong merge message entirely, through no fault of the user.
Since we already fetch the PR info when staging it, there's very
little overhead to checking that the PR message we store is correct
then, and update it if it's not. This means the forward-port's
description should also be correct.
While at it, clean the forward port PR's creation a bit:
- there should always be a message since the title is required on
PRs (only the body can be missing), therefore no need to check that
- as we're adding a bunch of pseudo-headers, there always is a body,
no need for the condition
- inline the `pr_data` and `URL`: they were extracted for the support
of draft PRs, since that's been removed it's now unnecessary
Fixes#530
The page of PRs in "error" is currently kinda broken: it does not show
any feedback aside from the PR being in error which is not very
useful.
The intent was always to show an explanation, but when adding the page
I just deref'd `staging_id` which always fails though in two different
ways:
* when the PR can not be staged at all (because of a conflict) there
is no staging at all with a reason to show, so there should be
a fallback that the PR could not even be staged
* `staging_id` is a related field which deref's to the staging_ids
of the first *active* batch, except when a staging completes
(successfully or not) both staging and batch are disabled.
Plus the first batch will be the one for the first staging so if the
PR is retried and fails again the wrong reason may be displayed.
So update the section to show what we want: the reason of the
staging of the *last* batch attached to the PR.
NOTE: there's one failure mode remaining, namely if a staging fails
then on retry the PR conflicts with the new state of the
repository (so it can't be staged at all), the "reason" will
remain that of the staging. This could be mitigated by attaching
a "nonsense" batch on failure to stage (similar to the
forwardport stuff), that batch would have no staging, therefore
no staging reason, therefore fallback.
Closes#525
On staging failure, the 'bot would point to the first error or failure
status it found on the commit. This turns out not to be correct as
we (now) have various statuses which are optional, and may fail
without blocking stagings (either because they're solely informational
or because they're blocking & overridable on PRs).
Fix this so the 'bot points to the first *required* failure.
Fixes#517
* Remove the forwardport creating PRs in draft, that was mostly to
avoid codeowners triggering but we've removed the github one and
hand-rolled it, so not a concern anymore.
* Prevent merging `draft` PRs, the mergebot rejects approval on draft
PRs and insults people.
TBD (maybe): try to create *conflicting* forward-port PRs in draft so
it's clearer they need to be *fixed*? Issue of not being able to do
that on all private repositories remains so~~
Fixes#500
"Uniquifier" commits were introduced to ensure branches of a staging
on which nothing had been staged would still be rebuilt properly.
This means technically the branches on which something had been
staged never *needed* a uniquifier, strictly speaking. And those lead
to extra building, because once the actually staged PRs get pushed
from staging to their final destination it's an unknown commit to the
runbot, which needs to rebuild it instead of being able to just use
the staging it already has.
Thus only add the uniquifier where it *might* be necessary:
technically the runbot should not manage this use case much better,
however there are still issues like an ancillary build working with
the same branch tip (e.g. the "current master") and sending a failure
result which would fail the entire staging. The uniquifier guards
against this issue.
Also update rebase semantics to always update the *commit date* of the
rebased commits: this ensures the tip commit is always "recent" in the
case of a rebase-ff (which is common as that's what single-commit PRs
do), as the runbot may skip commits it considers "old".
Also update some of the utility methods around repos / commits to be
simpler, and avoid assuming the result is JSON-decodable (sometimes it
is not).
Also update the handling of commit statuses using postgres' ON
CONFLICT and jsonb support, hopefully this improves (or even fixes)
the serialization errors. Should be compatible with 9.5 onwards which
is *ancient* at this point.
Fixes#509
Although it's possible to find what PR a commit was part of with a bit
of `git log` magic (e.g. `--ancestry-path COMMIT.. --reverse`) it's
not the most convenient, and many people don't know about it, leading
them to various debatable decisions to try and mitigate the issue,
such as tagging every commit in a PR with the PR's identity, which
then leads github to spam the PR itself with pingbacks from its own
commits. Which is great.
Add this information to the commits when rebasing them (and *only*
when rebasing them), using a `Part-of:` pseudo-header.
Fixes#482
If a PR is closed on github and unknown by the mergebot, when fetched
it should be properly sync'd as "closed" in the backend, otherwise the
PR can get in a weird state and cause issues.
Also move the "I fetched the thing" comment before the actual creation
of the PR for workflow clarity, otherwise the reader has the
impression that the 'bot knew about the PR then fetched it anyway.
And improve savepoint management around the fetching: savepoints
should be released in all cases.
Closes#488.
If two PRs have the same label *in different projects entirely*, the
mergebot should not consider them to be linked, but it did as shown by
the warning message on odoo-dev/odoo#905 (two PRs created from the
same branch in different projects were seen as linked by the status
checker).
3b417b16a1 fixed the actual staging
selection, it's only the warning which did not properly segregate PRs.
Only group PRs which target the same branch (therefore are within the
same project).
Fixes#487
Previously, a PR's status page would only show the linked / related
PRs when `open`.
Since the relations between PRs remains useful, also make this
information available during staging and after merging.
Fixes#463
If a PR got merged to master (or whatever the current development
branch is), there's no easy way to know what maintenance branch it
ended up landing in, except by asking git which branches contain the
commit (which can be rather slow).
Add a special case on merge which labels the PR with a pseudo-branch
patterned after the second-to-last branch of the project:
* if the branch ends with a number, increment the number by one
e.g. 2.0 -> 2.1, 5 -> 5.1
* otherwise, just prefix with `post-` e.g. "maint" ->
"post-maint" (that one doesn't sound very helpful, but I guess it's
nice for the weirdoes who call their branches "natty narwhal" and
shit)
Fixes#450
5cf3617eef intended to create merge
messages with only the content of PR descriptions before the first
thematic break. However this processing was incorrectly applied
to all messages being processed (meaning rebased / squashed commit
messages as well).
Properly apply thematic break processing to only commit messages
created from PR descriptions.
The mergebot has a feature to ping users when an approved PR or
forward-port suffers from a CI failure, as those PRs might be somewhat
unattended (so the author needs to be warned explicitly).
Because the runbot can send the same failure information multiple
times, the mergebot also has a *deduplication* feature, however this
deduplication feature was too weak to handle the case where the PR has
2+ failures e.g. ci and linting as it only stores the last-seen
failure, and there would be two different failures here.
Worse, because the validation step looks at all required statuses, in
that case it would send a failure ping message for each failed
status *on each inbound status*: first it'd notify about the ci
failure and store that, then it'd see the linting failure, check
against the previous (ci), consider it a new failure, notify, and
store that. Rinse and repeat every time runbot sends a ci *or* lint
failure, leading to a lot of dumb and useless spam.
Fix by storing the entire current failure state (a map of context:
status) instead of just the last-seen status data.
Note: includes a backwards-compatibility shim where we just convert a
stored status into a full `{context: status}` map. This uses the
"current context" because we don't have the original, but if it was a
different context it's not going to match anyway (the target_url
should be different) and if it was the same context then there's a
chance we skip sending a redundant notification.
Fixes#435
Before this change, a CI override would have to be replicated on most
/ all forward-ports of the base PR. This was intentional to see how it
would shake out, the answer being that it's rather annoying.
Also add a `statuses_full` computed field on PRs for the aggregate
status: the existing `statuses` field is just a copy of the commit
statuses which I didn't remember I kept free of the overrides so the
commit statuses could be displayed "as-is" in the backend (the
overrides are displayed separately). And while at it fix the PR
dashboard to use that new field: that was basically the intention but
then I went on to use the "wrong" field hence #433.
Mebbe the UI part should be displayed using a computed M2M (?)
as a table or as tags instead? This m2m could indicate whether the
status is an override or an "intrinsic" status.
Also removed some dead code:
* leftover from the removed tagging feature (removed the tag
manipulation but forgot some of the setup / computations)
* unused local variables
* an empty skipped test case
Fixes#439.
Fixes#433.
Currently when creating *merges* the commit message is the
concatenation of the PR title and the PR body.
However it can be convenient to include description test which would
not be included in the commit message e.g. PR template
stuff. "Thematic breaks" seem like a good way to do this: the commit
message will only include the content preceding the first thematic
break, everything else is ignored (except headings which are not
ignored, double negations FTW).
Might be that that's a bit excessive and we should only ignore what
follows the *last* thematic break. Or that there needs to be a more
specific marker. We'll see.
Fixes#443.
Because the commands were collected in a `dict[Command, Params]` a
command could only be present once *in the mergebot* (the forwardbot
already collected commands in a list).
* Update mergebot commands parser to collect commands in a list.
* Improve override to allow a comma-separated list of CIs to override.
* Simplify the parsing of delegate to generate one delegate command
per target (slightly less efficient if multiple logins are provided
but that is likely extremely rare).
Fixes#445
Because github materialises every labels change in the
timeline (interspersed with comments), the increasing labels churn
contributes to PRs being difficult to read and review.
This change removes the update of labels on PRs, instead the mergebot
will automatically send a comment to created PRs serving as a
notification that the PR was noticed & providing a link to the
mergebot's dashboard for that PR where users should be able to see the
PR state in detail in case they wonder what's what.
Lots of tests had to be edited to:
- remove any check on the labels of the PR
- add checks on the PR dashboard (to ensure that they're at least on
the correct "view")
- add a helper to handle the comment now added to every PR by the 'bot
- since that helper is needed by both mergebot and forwardbot, the
utils modules were unified and moved out of the odoo modules
Probably relevant note: no test was added for the dashboard
ACL, though since I had to explicitly unset the group on the repo used
for tests for things to work it looks to me like it at least excludes
people just fine.
Fixes#419
Convert overridable CI to an m2m from partners, it's significantly
more convenient to manipulate as multiple users can (and likely will)
have access to the same overrides, add a name_search so the override
is easy to find from a partner, and provide a view for the
overrides (with partners as tags).
Also make the repository optional on CI overrides.
Fixes#420
When retrieving unknown PRs, the process would apply all comments,
thereby applying eventual r+ without taking in account their
relationship to a force push. This means it was possible for a
mergebot-unknown PR to be r+'d, updated, retargeted, and the mergetbot
would consider it good to go.
The possible damage would be somewhat limited but still, not great.
Sadly Github simply doesn't provide access to the entire event stream
of the PR, so there is no way to even know whether the PR was updated,
let alone when in relation to comments. Therefore just resync the PR
after having applied comments: we still want to apply the merge method
& al, we just want to reset back to un-approved.
An other minor fix (for something we never actually hit but could):
reviews are treated more or less as comments, but separate at github's
level. The job would apply all comments then all reviews, so the
relative order of comments and reviews would be wrong.
Combine and order comments and reviews so they are applied
in (hopefully) the correct order of their creation / submission.
Closes#416
Historically PRs to disabled branches were treated like PRs to
un-managed branches: ignored.
However because they cay *already exist* when the branch is disabled,
the effects can be subtly different, and problematically so
e.g. ignoring all PR events on PRs targeting disabled branches means
we can't close them anymore, which is less than great.
So don't ignore events on PRs to disabled branches (creation, sync,
closing, and reopening) but also send feedback on PRs to disabled or
un-managed branches to indicate that they're not merge-able.
Fixes#410
If we can't stage a PR, rather than immediately put them in error wait
until they were the first we tried staging, otherwise they might have
been conflicting with the previous batch which ultimately won't be
merged for other reason and they would have worked as part of the next
batch.
Note: this commit will lead to false negatives because it's
batch-based rather than repo-based, so if the first batch only affects
repo A and the second batch only affects repo B, if the second batch
triggers a merge error it should be rejected immediately (as it's
applied on a "pristine" repo B) but this change will just bump it to
the next staging.
fixes#209
On per-repo status configurations, convert the "branch_ids" filter to
a domain on branches. Since the selection is generally
binary (statuses either apply to the master branch or apply to
non-master branch) this avoids error-prone missed updates where we
forget to enable statuses pretty much every time we fork off a new
branch.
Fixes#404
Normally opening a PR against a disabled branch is like opening a PR
against a branch which is not configured at all: the PR id ignored
entirely.
However if the PR already exists then the state of the branch isn't
normally checked when interacting with the branch, and it is possible
to trigger its staging, at which point the staging itself will crash:
on a project the branches are `active_test=False` so they're all
visible in the form, but when repos go search()-ing for the branch
they won't find it and will blow up.
Solution: only try staging on branches which are active. Fixes
odoo/runbot#408. Also do the same for checking stagings.
And while at it, fix#409 by wrapping each checking or staging into a
try/except and a savepoint. This way if a staging blows up it should
move on to the next branch instead of getting stuck.
The "blocked" computation would not take branch targets in account, so
PRs with the same label targeting *different branches* (possible if
somewhat rare due to our naming conventions) could block one another,
despite really being unrelated.
Also fix up some messages:
* if a PR is blocked due to having no merge method, it should say
that, not "has no merge" (no merge what?)
* format un-managed branches as `$repo:$branch` in logging messages,
`$repo#$thing` is for issues / PRs and `$branch` alone can be very
unhelpful
Closes#407
This is a regression due to the implementation details of
odoo/runbot#376: previously _parse_command would only yield the
commands it had specifically recognised (from a whitelist).
22e18e752b simplified the implementation
and (for convenience when adding new commands) now passes through any
command to the executor instead of skipping the unknown one.
But I forgot to update the executor to ignore unknown commands, so it
treats them as *failed* (since the success flag doesn't get set) and
assumes it's an ACL issue, so notifies the user that they can't do the
thing they never really asked for.
Add an end-case which skips the feedback bit for unrecognized
commands, which restores the old behavior.
Fixes#390
Currently it can be difficult to know why the mergebot refuses to
merge a PR (not that people care, they generally just keep sending new
commands without checking what the 'bot is telling them, oh well...).
Anyway knowing the CI state is the most complicated bit because the CI
tag only provides a global pass/fail for statuses but not a view of
specific statuses, and sometimes either the runbot or github fails to
notify the mergebot, leading to inconsistent internal states & shit.
By adding a tag per status context per PR, we can more clearly
indicate what's what.
Fixes#389
Apparently a long-running issue but not really a concern before the
new mergebot started sending a lot more statuses: stagings would show
a list of all statuses they received, including optional / irrelevant
statuses.
Get a list of required statuses and only show that on the staging
dropdowns.
Closes#387
Adds an `override` mergebot command. The ability to override is set on
an individual per-context per-repository basis, similar to but
independent from review rights. That is, a given individual may be
able to override the status X on repository A and unable to do so on
repository B.
Overrides are stored in the same format as regular statuses, but
independent from them in order to persist them across builds.
Only PR statuses can be overridden, statuses which are overridable on
PRs would simply not be required on stagings.
An alternative to implementing this feature in the mergebot would be
to add it to individual status-generating tools on a per-need
basis.
Pros of that alternative:
* display the correct status on PRs, currently the PR will be failing
status-wise (on github) but correct as far as the mergebot is
concerned
* remove complexity from the mergebot
Cons of that alternative:
* each status-generating tool would have to implement some sort of ACL
system
* each status-generating tool would have to receive & parse PR
comments
* each status-generating tool would have to maintain per-pr state in
order to track overrides
Some sort of helper library / framework ought make that rather easy
though. It could also be linked into the central provisioning system
thing.
Closes#376
Requirement for odoo/runbot#376: one can't expect there being someone
to override CI checks on stagings, so it only makes sense for checks
on PRs, which in turns requires that there could be checks only
required on PRs.
Could also be useful for features like incremental linting /
formatting, we may want to apply checks on PRs which filter on the
lines modified, but not require the entire software be reformatted at
once.
Having the required statuses be a mere list of contexts has become a
bit too limiting for our needs as it doesn't allow e.g. adding new
required statuses on only some branches of a repository (e.g. only
master), nor does it allow putting checks on only branches, or only
stagings, which would be useful for overridable checks and the like,
or for checks which only make sense linked to a specific revision
range (e.g. "incremental" linting which would only check whatever's
been modified in a PR).
Split the required statuses into a separate set of objects, any of
which can be separately marked as applying only to some branches (no
branch = all branches).
Fixes#382
While the head gets updated (properly), the squash flag did not which
could lead to odd results. Since a PR can only be reopened if it was
regular-pushed to (not after a force push) there are two scenarios:
* the PR updated to have 0 commits, closed, pushed to with one commit
then reopened, after reopening the PR would be marked as !squash and
would ask for a merge method (that's what happened with
odoo/odoo#51763)
* the PR has a single commit, is closed, pushed to then reopened,
after reopening the PR would still be marked a squash and potentially
straight rebased without asking for a merge method
Nothing would break per-se but both scenarios are undesirable.
Close#373
The logic of the partner merge wizard is to collect all relevant data
from source partners, write them to a destination partner, then remove
the sources.
This... doesn't work when the field in question has a UNIQUE
constraint (like github_login), because it's going to copy the value
from a source onto a dest which will blow the constraint, and so the
copy fails. In that case the user first has to *move over* the unique
field's value then they can use the wizard.
Just fix for the github login: take all sources, remove (and store)
their github logins, then write the login onto the dst.
An alternative would have been to *defer* the constraint, however:
* it only works on unique constraints, not unique indexes
* it requires the constraint to be declared DEFERRABLE
Closes#301
approving a PR which failed CI should trigger a feedback message since
6cb58a322d (#158), the code has not been
removed and the tests still pass.
However fwbot r+ would go through its own process for r+ which would
explain why that feedback is sometimes gone / lost (cf #327 and #336).
* make fwbot r+ delegate to mergebot r+
* add dedicated logging for this operation to better analyze
post-mortem
* automatically ping the reviewer to specifically tell them they're idiots
* move the feedback item out of the state change bit, send it even if
it's a useless r+ (because it's already r+'d)
* add a test for forward-ports
Closes#327, closes#336
Rather than try to fix up various bits where we search & all and
wonder what index we should be using, make the column a CIText.
For mergebot the main use case would be properly handling
delegate=XXX: currently if XXX is not a case-sensitive match we're
going to create a new partner with the new github login and
give *them* delegation, and the intended target of the delegation
isn't going to work correctly.
Also try to install the citext extension if it's not in the database,
and run the database-creation process with `check=True` so if that
fails we properly bubble up the error and don't try to run tests on a
corrupted / broken DB.
Fixes#318
