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
On a cherrypick failing due to renamelimit issues, the cherrypick
would be retried after resetting the target to its *original* commit.
This only works correctly if the first commit works after a retry, if
a latter commit has to be retried then it gets re-cherry-picked onto
the target branch rather than its own parent.
Fix by remembering the previously successful cherry-picked commit and
resetting to *that*. However I can't really test it because it's
rather hard to get into a situation where the rename detection fails
using synthetic tests.
While at it, clean the logs by stripping the "performing inexact
rename detection" stuff from all stderr (both the CherrypickError from
which it was already stripped and the debug messages).
Fixes#444
When a build is reaching the run_run_odoo step, a database has to be
set. If none are found in the build params, the one from the last step
is choosen. Historically, the last one in the `Split` config was `all`
but now, the last one is `base`.
With this commit, if none are found in build params, `all` is choosen if
found in any install config steps. As a default, the one from the first
step is choosen.
Since 3657a65b20 docker_run is called outside of the step and python
steps have to set the `docker_params` variable. This breaks the computed
`log_list` because the string `docker_run(` is searched in python
steps code to determine if it's a docker_step.
With this commit, the `docker_params = ` is searched instead.
For now, the sticky flag is used to define bundle to use as target to upgrade.
The plan for future is to continue to test upgrade, even if the bundle is not sticky anymore.
This new flag will allow to remove sticky for old branche.
This will also allow to disable upgrda tests for still sticky branches when needed.
This commit also filter source bundle based on this flag
(before that all base bundle where used as source, even if not sticky)
Params mechanism are a way to avoid to rebuild with the exact same params.
Commit is the main identifier to know if two builds are the same, ususally
commit_link are not usefull to uniquify params, exept when the mergebase is
in use as in security check (based on diff).
We would also like to avoid to have red diff-based build in sticky/base branches when the
ci is ignored on a pr, but we want to keep the diff display on new batches
(lines and files changed).
We need a way to know if it is a is_base bundle. This was an initially forbidden behaviour
because of duplicate detection.
This commit add a batch_dependent flag. This will enable the use of the batch in the
fingerprint, making it unique per batch and disabling duplicate detection/ in this
case we can use the "is_base" information from the bundle + avoid false duplicate
detection if trigger is based on mergebase-commit diff. (pr based on another pr now merged)
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
2.29 changed the formatting of conflict labels (the stuff added at the
end of the closing conflict marker):
6cceea19eb
Used to be
>>>>>>> <commit>... <text>
now is
>>>>>>> <commit> (<text>)
Just ignore everything after the commit hash.
On the build error web page, a regular assigned error is not shown to
all users.
With this commit, a regular build error (not only random) will be shown
if the error is assigned.
When builds logs are parsed by using the contextual button, the client
stays on the same page even if a build error is created.
With this commit, the client is now redirected to the created/found
build error(s).
When calling a step from a python step, it is impossible to alter some parameter, the only solution is to copy all step code.
With this change, python step are now able to override docker_run parameter of another step by modifying the dict returned by run_* steps
and assigning the result to "docker_params".
This will mainly be used to set the correct docker_image for migration pre and post test. This can also be used to alter a command,
like removing the pip install or adding extra pre/post operation on the command.
Currently, runbot is using a single Dockerfile maintained in a data file
in the source code. This situation is not convenient for testing Odoo in
different environments.
With this commit, a Dockerfile Odoo model is used to allow usage of
multiple Docker containers.
This model comes with a pre-defined Dockerfile that can be used to build
the current Odoo supported versions (12.0 up to 14.0).
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
The old order based on status is not really needed anymore:
- Scheduled builds have a special condition and already have a low priority.
- Indirect builds don't exist anymore
- It is actually questionnable to postpone rebuild. Sometimes they are needed but stuck.
This new proposition will keep subbuild scheduling close to parent build. Some build may take 2 hours
because they are parallelized and children are stuck. Priority should be defined by top parent.
