Stop *staging* release PRs: they are normally fairly simple and should
not fail their staging outside of unreliable tests (or possibly a few
edge cases e.g. forgot one version change thing), however staging them
creates the possibility of a "version hole" on the release branch
which is undesirable.
Instead, immediately and unconditionally push the release commits onto
the newly created branches, if there are things which don't work they
can be fixed afterwards (and the process refined, maybe).
Also add the same feature for *bump* PRs, with the difference that the
bump PRs are not created / requested by default (they have to be opted
in individually).
For convenience, add a feature which automatically finds the PRs via
inputting the label (not really tested yet).
Closes#603
Because the searching of the PR occurs *right* after the PR was
created on the server, despite the additional operations (status,
approval) it's apparently possible for the lookup of the new PR to
occur about the same time the PR is being created, kinda, maybe?
On DS it triggers very reliably for every PR but the first. By moving
the retrieval after the repo timeout & we've run the crons, we near
guarantee the PRs are visible (it's possible for things to fail on
grounds of github reliability, but then they'd have failed *even more*
before).
- add a logging entry for PR updates
- change the generic log entry to log the sender (of the event) rather
than the PR author
- fix the post-facto PR loader to more systematically and reliably set
a `sender`
Old messages were quite inconsistent in their pinging of the PR author
and reviewer.
Reviewed messages (probably missed some but...) and try to more
consistently ping when the feedback requires some sort of action in
order to proceed.
Fixes#592
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.
* 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
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
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
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
As the odds of having more projects or more repos with different
requirements in the same project, the need to have different sets of
reviewers for different repositories increases.
As a result, rather than be trivial boolean flags the review info
should probably depend on the user / partner and the repo. Turns out
the permission checks had already been extracted into their own
function so most of the mess comes from testing utilities which went
and configured their review rights as needed.
Incidentally it might be that the test suite could just use something
like a sequence of commoditized accounts which get configured as
needed and not even looked at unless they're used.
The staging cron was already essentially split between "check if one
of the stagings is successful (and merge it)" and "check if we should
create a staging" as these were two separate loops in the cron.
But it might be useful to disable these two operations separately
e.g. we might want to stop the creation of new staging but let the
existing stagings complete.
The actual splitting is easy but it turns out a bunch of tests were
"optimised" to only run the merge cron. Most of them didn't blow up
but it seems more prudent to fix them all.
fixesodoo/runbot#310
Discussing #238 with @odony, the main concern was the difficulty of
understanding if things merged in one repo were related to things
merged in an other repo: currently, knowing this requires going to the
merged PR, getting its label, and checking the PRs with the same HEAD
in the other repository to see if there's a correlation (e.g. PRs
merged around the same time).
The current structure of the mergebot makes it reasonably easy to add
the other PRs of the batch in the pseudo-headers, such that we get
links to all "related" PRs in the head commit (and links back from the
commits which is probably less useful but...)
Fixes#238
The fw-bot testing API should improve the perfs of mergebot tests
somewhat (less waiting around for instance).
The code has been updated to the bare minimum (context-managing repos,
change to PRs and replacing rolenames by explicit token provisions)
but extra facilities were used to avoid changing *everything*
e.g. make_commit (singular), automatic generation of PR refs, ...
The tests should eventually be updated to remove these.
Also remove the local fake / mock. Being so much faster is a huge
draw, but I don't really want to spend more time updating it,
especially when fwbot doesn't get to take advantage. A local /
lightweight fake github (as an external service over http) might
eventually be a good idea though, and more applicable (including to
third-parties).
Use the proper / actual "is there any stageable PR" query to check if
a PR is blocked as well, that way they shoudn't be diverging all the
time even if it might make PR.blocked a bit more expensive.
fixes#111
Before this, impacting a commit's statuses on the relevant PR or
staging would be performed immediatly / inline with its
consumption. This, however, is problematic if we want to implement
additional processing like #87 (and possibly though probably not #52):
webhook handlers should be kept short and fast, feeding back into
github would not be acceptable.
- flag commits as needing processing instead of processing them
immediately, this uses a partial index as it looks like the
recommended / proper way to index a boolean column in which one of
the values is searched much more than the other (todo: eventually
check if that actually does anythnig)
- add a new cron for commits processing
- alter tests so they use this new cron (mostly by migrating them to
`run_crons` though not solely as some still need more detailed
management to properly check intermediate steps)
Fix an issue with closing a staged PR while at it (the "merging" tag
would potentially never be removed).
If a transient github failure makes the integration fail but also
makes the following reset fail the entire staging process would be
cancelled (and operations so far rollbacked) except for the failure
comment which would be effected, as in odoo/odoo#26380.
By pushing the comment to the feedback queue, if the reset fails the
comment is rollbacked and "unqueued".
Hopefully this finally fixes the double commenting
issue (e.g. odoo/odoo#28160). This seems (according to reading the
logs and also logic) like a failure (concurrency of some sort) leading
to a transaction rollback *after* the GH API call, so the cron's DB
actions are rollbacked (then performed again on the next run) *but*
the GH API interactions are not rollbacked, and are thus performed
twice.
Since the entire purpose of the feedback table is to send comments,
send both "staging failed" and "Linked pull requests" comments via
that.
Normally, two PRs from the same owner with the same branch
name (source) are batched together, and that's represented by batching
them by label e.g. two PRs labelled
`odoo-dev:12.0-snailmail-address-format-anp` means they probably
should be merged together somehow.
*However* this is an issue when editing via the web interface: if the
editor doesn't have write access to the repository, github
automatically createa a branch called `patch-<n>` under their
ownership, where `<n>` is a sequence (of sorts?) *within the user's
fork*.
This means it's possible (and indeed easy) to create <foo>:patch-1 on
different (non-forks) but related repositories without them actually
being co-dependent, at which point they get blocked on one
another, which can lead to them being blocked (period) due to runbot
not currently handling co-dependencies between PRs.
People get surprised/worried that their ready PR never gets picked up,
but it's because there is a non-ready (either unreviewed or failing CI)
pull request linked to it. This aims to at least warn them of the issue.
Taking 3 statements to create a branch before working with it is a bit
much, a simple helper reduces that to a single function call with 4
params (from 3 function calls with 1/4/1 params).
If a staging covers multiple repositories and there's a fast-forward
issue on any but the first repo/target, runbot_merge attempted to
revert the commits it had fast-forwarded on the previous repos.
This doesn't work when branch-protection is active, unless runbot_merge
is a repository administrator (and branch protection is not configured
to apply to those): reverting is done by push-forcing the original head
back onto the ref, which branch-protection unconditionally precludes.
This commit does not entirely fix the race condition (it does not look
like github provides any way to do that), but it should significantly
reduce the race-condition window as it performs a semi-wet run of the
fast-forward process on the tmp branches before actually updating the
targets. That way the only remaining breakage should be when somebody
pushes on repositories 1.. between the test-FF on tmp branches and the
actual fast forward.
While at it, updated the github API thing to *always* dump the JSON body
on an error response, if the content-type is json.
A limitation to 50 commits PRs was put in place to avoid rebasing
huge PRs (as a rebase means 1 merge + 1 commit *per source commit*),
however the way it was done would also limit regular merges, and the
way the limitation was implemented was not clear.
* explicitly check that limit in the rebase case
* make error message on PR sizes (rebase 50 or merge 250) clearer
* remove limit from commits-fetching (check it beforehand)
* add a test to merge >50 commits PRs
* fix the local implementation of pulls/:number/commits to properly
paginate
a0063f9df0 slightly improved the error
message on non-PR ci failure (e.g. a community PR makes enterprise
break) by adding the failed commit, but that's still not exactly clear,
even for technical users (plus it requires having access to all the
repos which is not the case for everyone).
This commit further improves the situation by storing the target_url
and description fields of the commit statuses, and printing out the
target_url on failure if it's present.
That way the PR comment denoting build failure should now have a link to
the relevant failed build on runbot, as that's the target_url it
provides.
The change is nontrivial as it tries to be compatible with both old and
new statuses storage format, such that there is no migration to perform.
If CI fails on a non-PR'd branch of a staging (e.g. given repos A and B
and a PR to A, CI fails on the staging branch to B), the error message
(log and comment on the PR) is unhelpful as it states that the staging
failed for "unknown reason".
Improve this by providing the failed CI context and the commit, which
should allow finding out the branch & CI logs, and understanding the
why of the failure.
Fixes#36
Before this change, when staging batches only affecting one repo (of n)
the unaffected repositories would get a staging branch exactly matching
the target.
As a result, either runbot_merge or runbot would simply return the
result of an unrelated build, potentially providing incorrect
information and either failing a staging which should have succeeded
(e.g. change in repo A broke B, PR is making a change in repo A which
fixes B, but B's state is reported as the previous broken build) or
succeeding a staging which should have failed (change in repo A breaking
B except a previous build of the exact same B succeeded with a different
A and is returned).
To fix this issue, create a dummy commit at the head of each staging
branch. Because commit dates are included in the hash and have a second
precision it's pretty unlikely that we can get built duplicates, but
just to be completely sure some random bits are added to the commit
message as well.
Various tests fixed to correctly handle the extra dummy commit on
staging branches.
fixes#35
rebase-and-merge (or squash-merge if pr.commits == 1) remains default,
but there are use cases like forward ports (merge branch X into branch
X+1 so that fixes to X are available in X+1) where we really really
don't want to rebase the source.
This commits implements two alternative merge methods:
If the PR and its target are ~disjoint, perform a straight merge (same
as old default mode).
However if the head of the PR has two parents *and* one of these
parents is a commit of the target, assume this is a merge commit to
fix a conflict (common during forward ports as X+1 will have changed
independently from and incompatibly with X in some ways).
In that case, merge by copying the PR's head atop the
target (basically rebase just that commit, only updating the link to
the parent which is part of target so that it points to the head of
target instead of whatever it was previously).
* Add ids accessor to the remote Model fake
* Explicitly ignore order when unnecessary, a test fails since the
ordering of prs has been changed for UI purposes. This is only an
issue for Remote though it's unclear why (as the local Issue/PR
objects should still have a per-repo sequence)
Previously when splitting staging we'd create two never-staged
stagings. In a system where the stagings get deleted once done
with (succeeeded or failed) that's not really important, but now that
we want to keep stagings around inactive things get problematic as
this method gunks up the stagings table, plus the post-split stagings
would "steal" the original's batches, losing information (relation
between stagings and batches).
Replace these empty stagings with dedicated *split* objects. A batch
can belong to both a staging and a split, the split is deleted once a
new staging has been created from it.
Eventually we may want to make batches shared between stagings (so we
can track the entire history of a batch) but currently that's only
PR-level.
If we want a dashboard with a history of stagings, maybe not deleting
them would be a good idea.
A replacement for the headless stagings would probably be a good idea:
currently they're created when splitting a failed staging containing
more than one batch, but their only purpose is as splits of existing
batches to be deactivated/deleted to be re-staged (new batches &
stagings are created then as e.g. some of the batches may not be
merge-able anymore) and that's a bit weird.
Remote's labels are not entirely under our control as the part before
":" is the *owner* of the source repo => introduce additional "owned"
fixture to handle this case, as it may diverge from the "user" role if
running the tests against an organisation.
Can't really assume we can get the github logins "user" or "reviewer"
to run the test suite remotely, so add an indirection and backronym
those to *roles* instead. The local test suite has identical roles &
logins, but the remote version does not.
Also use the "other" role for any random user, and don't create its
partner up-front.
Also renamed the self-reviewer user to self_reviewer, that's a bit
less weird when dealing with e.g. ini files.
This is the preparation of an attempt to make these tests work with
both a local github mock (in-memory) and a remote actual github.
Move a bunch of fixtures relying on the specific github
implementation (and odoo-as-library access) to the "local" plugin,
including splitting the "repo" fixture.
The specific fixtures will likely have to be adjusted as the
remote endpoint is fleshed out.
Reviews are interpreted like comments and can contain any number of
commands, with the difference that APPROVED and REQUEST_CHANGES are
interpreted as (respectively) r+ and r- prefixes.
* p0 cancel existing stagings in order to be staged as soon as
possible
* p0 PRs should be picked over split batches
* p0 bypass PR-level CI and review requirements
* p0 can be set on any of a batch's PR, matched PRs will be staged
alongside even if their priority is the default
