1cea247e6c tried to improve staging
checks to avoid staging PRs in the wrong state, however it had two
issues:
PR state
--------
The process would reset the PR's state to open, but unless the head
was being resync'd it wouldn't re-apply the statuses on the state,
leading to a PR with all-valid statuses, but a missing CI.
Message
-------
The message check didn't compose the PR message the same way PR
creation / update did (it did not trim the title and description
individually, only after concatenation), resulting in a
not-actually-existing divergence getting signaled in the case where
the PR title ends or the description starts with whitespace.
Expand relevant test, add a utility function to compose a PR message
and use it everywhere for coherence.
Also update the logging and reporting to show a diff of all the
updated items (hidden behind a `details` element).
Previously the mergebot would only sync the head commit, but synching
more is useful.
Also update the final sanity check on staging:
- as with check, update the message & target branch
- reset PR state and post a message when updating message instead of
doing so silently
Note: maybe only fail the staging if the message is updated *and*
relevant to staging (aka there's a merge method and it's not
`rebase`)?
Fixes#680
If commits have different authors (/ committers), the mergebot would
ask github to create a commit with an author (/ committer) of `None` /
`null`.
Apparently github really does not like that, and complains that
> nil is not an object
So remove the key entirely. Also fix the collision between `author`
and the `Co-Authored-By` list, which could lead to trying to set an
`author` of `[name, email]` instead of an object, which is also not
accepted by github.
af016f4239 did a half-assed job and
didn't fix the one test which actually checks the dashboard.
TBF I was in a bit of a hurry trying to make the mergebot work and be
presentable again, but still...
Test seems to fail from time to time with one of the PRs getting
lost. Tried to move code around trying to investigate, can't repro
anymore. Possibly a race condition because the `to_pr` call was
performed too early, before the webhook had run (and thus before the
PR object had been created on the odoo side).
By moving the `to_pr` calls to after the cron run, we really ensure
the webhooks will have run.
Also update `to_pr` to ensure exactly one PR was retrieved, as
currently nothing is checked so we might have gotten none (yet), which
should be noticed early and clearly. In theory this also guards
against multiple PRs, but PRs should be unique on (repo, number).
Currently deactivating a branch kinda leaves users in the dark, with
little way to know what has happened aside from inferring it from the
branch having disappeared from the main dashboard.
- surface the state of the branch in the PR dashboard (also surface
the target branch at all so users can see if their PR is targeted
as they expect as far as the mergebot is concerned)
- close & notify every PR to a branch being deactivated
- cancel any current staging to the branch (as a consequence of the
above)
Closes#632
The previous version of the code assumed `pr['body']` is always a
string, which is not correct, when the PR body is emptied the body
itself is removed (its value is `None`).
Add a case for this in the PR edition test, and avoid blowing up (or
adding empty newlines) when the PR body is empty. For PR creation this
issue was fixed in c2db5659d8 but
apparently I missed that the exact same issue occurs just a few lines
above.
Also turns out github does *not* send change information when the body
is updated from (or to?) `None`, so don't even bother with that, just
check every time if the overall message has been updated.
Fixes#629
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
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
Stagings would be cancelled automatically if the PR's commits were
updated, but not if the target (base) was changed, even though that
has a drastic impact on staging.
Add hooks to unstage PRs if their base is updated, or if their message
is updated and relevant to staging (merge or rebase-merge methods).
Fixes#604
When a staging's fast-forward (to the target branch) fails, the
mergebot would provide no useful information on the staging or the
dashboard.
This is because the reason was set to the HTTP status, which in case
of a fast-forward error is just "422 client error: unprocessable
entity".
Improve this by trying to parse github's response in that case, and
using the JSON error message as failure reason. This provides more
useful failure information like "update is not a fast forward",
"reference does not exist", or a branch protection failure.
Closes#591
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
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
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)
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
"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.
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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.
Before this change, `r-` on a pr[p=0] does essentially nothing. At
most it will unstage if the PR had been (somewhat unnecessarily) r+'d
in the past but then the PR will get re-staged immediately.
To avoid this odd behaviour, if r- is sent to a p=0 PR not only is
the PR unreviewed (if it was reviewed) it always gets unstaged, and
its priority gets reset to 1 (high priority but doesn't bypass CI and
review). Also send a comment on that subject so followers of the pr
are notified.
Fixes#313
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
The PR creation had been fixed to always validate even without a
commit found (in case there was no need for a commit), but the update
of a PR in such a situation was not tested, and thus naturally did not
work because why would it work if it wasn't tested?
Also remove the conditional skip on updating a PR to a new head.
The test was checking things would work properly with
required_statuses being an empty string, because I'd also forgotten an
empty field becomes stored as `False` in the database, so trying
things out live neither the PRs nor the staging would work as their
assumption that they could straight split the required_statuses would
always fail.
Update the test to better match expectations, and hopefully this is
the end of that saga.
PRs transitioning to 'ready' had been checked and tested but turns out
I had completely forgotten to test that stagings would validate
properly therefore of course they didn't.
The issue here was I'd forgotten `''.split(',')` returns `['']` rather
than `[]`, so on an empty required_statuses the staging validator
would keep looking for a status matching the context `''` and would
never find it, keeping the staging pending until timeout. So most
likely the problem could have been resolved by just adding a condition
to
[r.strip() for r in repomap[c.sha].required_statuses.split(',')]
but I'd already done all the rest of the reorganisation by that point,
test pass and I think it's a somewhat better logic. Therefore I'll go
with that for now.
* properly handle empty required_statuses during staging validation
* remove the final postcondition, if we're missing commits which don't
require any statuse we should not care
* expand test to include up to merging PRs
* automatically create dummy commits when creating stagings, that way
the relevant commits are in the database (can't hurt)
PS: an other alternative would have been to filter out or skip ahead
on commits which don't require any statuses aka cmap &
required_statuse / cmap would not even have that entry
