- reduce font-size and bold-ness a hair as it causes issues in the
backend
- remove font adjustment on root object
- add `text-bg-primary` in the oustanding FP view, apparently BS5 does
not do anything like that by default when setting `bg-primary` for
some reason so the current team or user appears in black on dark
blue leading to sub-par readability
Broken (can't run odoo at all):
- In Odoo 17.0, the `pre_init_hook` takes an env, not a cursor, update
`_check_citext`.
- Odoo 17.0 rejects `@attrs` and doesn't say where they are or how to
update them, fun, hunt down `attrs={'invisible': ...` and try to fix
them.
- Odoo 17.0 warns on non-multi creates, update them, most were very
reasonable, one very wasn't.
Test failures:
- Odoo 17.0 deprecates `name_get` and doesn't use it as a *source*
anymore, replace overrides by overrides to `_compute_display_name`.
- Multiple tracking changes:
- `_track_set_author` takes a `Partner` not an id.
- `_message_compute_author` still requires overriding in order to
handle record creation, which in standard doesn't support author
overriding.
- `mail.tracking.value.field_type` has been removed, the field type
now needs to be retrieved from the `field_id`.
- Some tracking ordering have changed and require adjusting a few
tests.
Also added a few flushes before SQL queries which are not (obviously
at least) at the start of a cron or controller, no test failure
observed but better safe than sorry (probably).
With the trigger-ification pretty much complete the only cron that's
still routinely triggered explicitly is the cross-pr check, and it's
that in all modules, so there's no cause to keep an overridable
fixture.
The staging cron turns out to be pretty reasonable to trigger, as we
already have a handler on the transition of a batch to `not blocked`,
which is exactly when we want to create a staging (that and the
completion of the previous staging).
The batch transition is in a compute which is not awesome, but on the
flip side we also cancel active stagings in that exact scenario (if it
applies), so that matches.
The only real finesse is that one of the tests wants to observe the
instant between the end of a staging (and creation of splits) and the
start of the next one, which because the staging cron is triggered by
the failure of the previous staging is now "atomic", requiring
disabling the staging cron, which means the trigger is skipped
entirely. So this requires triggering the staging cron by hand.
The merge cron is the one in charge of checking staging state and
either integrating the staging into the reference branch (if
successful) or cancelling the staging (if failed).
The most obvious trigger for the merge cron is a change in staging
state from the states computation (transition from pending to either
success or failure). Explicitly cancelling / failing a staging marks
it as inactive so the merge cron isn't actually needed.
However an other major trigger is *timeout*, which doesn't have a
trivial signal. Instead, it needs to be hooked on the `timeout_limit`,
and has to be re-triggered at every update to the `timeout_limit`,
which in normal operations is mostly from "pending" statuses bumping
the timeout limit. In that case, `_trigger` to the `timeout_limit` as
that's where / when we expect a status change.
Worst case scenario with this is we have parasitic wakeups of this
cron, but having half a dozen wakeups unnecessary wakeups in an hour
is still probably better than having a wakeup every minute.
These are pretty simple to convert as they are straightforward: an
item is added to a work queue (table), then a cron regularly scans
through the table executing the items and deleting them.
That means the cron trigger can just be added on `create` and things
should work out fine.
There's just two wrinkles in the port_forward cron:
- It can be requeued in the future, so needs a conditional trigger-ing
in `write`.
- It is disabled during freeze (maybe something to change), as a
result triggers don't enqueue at all, so we need to immediately
trigger after freeze to force the cron re-enabling it.
Mergebot / forwardport crons need to run in a specific ordering in
order to flow into one another correctly. The default ordering being
unspecified, it was not possible to use the normal cron
runner (instead of the external driver running crons in sequence one
at a time). This can be fixed by setting *sequences* on crons, as the
cron runner (`_process_jobs`) will use that order to acquire and run
crons.
Also override `_process_jobs` however: the built-in cron runner
fetches a static list of ready crons, then runs that.
This is fine for normal situation where the cron runner runs in a loop
anyway but it's any issue for the tests, as we expect that cron A can
trigger cron B, and we want cron B to run *right now* even if it
hadn't been triggered before cron A ran.
We can replace `_process_job` with a cut down version which does
that (cut down because we don't need most of the error handling /
resilience, there's no concurrent workers, there's no module being
installed, versions must match, ...). This allows e.g. the cron
propagating commit statuses to trigger the staging cron, and both will
run within the same `run_crons` session.
Something I didn't touch is that `_process_jobs` internally creates
completely new environments so there is no way to pass context into
the cron jobs anymore (whereas it works for `method_direct_trigger`),
this means the context values have to be shunted elsewhere for that
purpose which is gross. But even though I'm replacing `_process_jobs`,
this seems a bit too much of a change in cron execution semantics. So
left it out.
While at it tho, silence the spammy `py.warnings` stuff I can't do
much about.
Merge errors are logical failures, not technical, it doesn't make
sense to log them out because there's nothing to be done technically,
a PR having consistency issues or a conflict is "normal". As such
those messages are completely useless and just take unnecessary space
in the logs, making their use more difficult.
Instead of sending them to logging, log staging attempts to the PR
itself, and only do normal logging of the operation as an indicative
item. And remove a bunch of `expect_log_errors` which don't stand
anymore.
While at it, fix a missed issue in forward porting: if the `root.head`
doesn't exist in the repo its `fetch` will immediately fail before
`cat-file` can even run, so the second one is redundant and the first
one needs to be handled properly. Do that. And leave checking
for *that* specific condition as a logged-out error as it should mean
there's something very odd with the repository (how can a pull request
have a head we can't fetch?)
Apparently I'd already fixed that in
286c1fdaee but it has yet to be
deployed.
While at it, add a feedback message to clarify that, unlike `r+`, `r-`
on forward ports does *not* propagate.
Fixes#912
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/
After seeing it be used, I foresee confusion around the current
behaviour (where it sets the limit), as one would expect the `fw=`
flags to affect one another when it looks like that would make sense
e.g. no/default/skipci/skipmerge all specify how to forward port, so
`fw=default` not doing anything after you've said `fw=no` (possibly by
mistake) would be fucking weird.
Also since the author can set limits, allow them to reset the fw
policy to default (keep skipci for reviewers), and for @d-fence add a
`fw=disabled` alias.
Fixes#902
Although the handling of forward ports on disabled branch was improved
in 94fe0329b4 in order to avoid losing
or needing to manually port such, because it goes through
`_schedule_fw_followup` some of the tests *that* performs were missed,
most notably that it only ports batches when no PRs are detached.
This is an issue if we need to force the port because of a branch
being deactivated: the forward-port could have stopped there due to a
conflict, in which case it's always going to be detached.
Thus the `force_fw` flag should also override the parenting state
check.
Also while at it make `force_fw` a regular flag, I don't understand
why I made it into a context value in the first place, it's only
passed from one location and that's directy calling the one function
which uses it...
Fixes#897
Previously it would count the number of source PRs with outstanding
forward ports, which is not the count from the home page so that was
confusing.
Also add counts next to the groups, so teams can be identified at a
glance.
And finally outline the current user in the list, so they can find
themselves faster when they're not one of the top entries.
`test_maintain_batch_history` was built for the original design where
PRs were removed from batches on being closed.
This decision was reverted in bbce5f8f46
as it proved an inferior and inconvenient design even in the face of
some of the edge cases, however I clearly forgot about this test.
On forward-porting, odoo/odoo#170183 generates a conflict on pretty
much every one of the 1111 files it touches, because they are
modify/delete conflicts that generates a conflict message over 200
bytes per file, which is over 200kB of output.
For this specific scenario, the commit message was being passed
through arguments to the `git` command, resulting in a command line
exceeding `MAX_ARG_STRLEN`[^1]. The obvious way to fix this is to pass
the commit message via stdin as is done literally in the line above
where we just copy a non-generated commit message.
However I don't think hundreds of kbytes worth of stdout[^2] is of any
use, so shorten that a bit, and stderr while at it.
Don't touch the commit message size for now, possibly forever, but
note that some log diving reveals a commit with a legit 18kB message
(odoo/odoo@42a3b704f7) so if we want to
restrict that the limit should be at least 32k, and possibly 64. But
it might be a good idea to make that limit part of the ready / merge
checks too, rather than cut things off or trigger errors during
staging.
Fixes#900
[^1]: Most resources on "Argument list too long" reference `ARG_MAX`,
but on both my machine and the server it is 2097152 (25% of the
default stack), which is ~10x larger than the commit message we
tried to generate. The actual limit is `MAX_ARG_STRLEN` which
can't be queried directly but is essentially hard-coded to
PAGE_SIZE * 32 = 128kiB, which tracks.
[^2]: Somewhat unexpectedly, that's where `git-cherry-pick` sends the
conflict info.
- When a redundant approval is sent to a PR, notify but don't ignore
the entire command set, there's no actual risk.
- Indicate that the entire comment was ignored when finding something
which does not parse.
Fixes#892, fixes#893
If a PR gets approved *then* fails CI, there should be a notification
warning the author & reviewer since
48e08b657b, it even has a test, which
passes (in fact it has *two*, one of which is redundant, so merge
`test_ci_failure_after_review` into the later `test_ci_approved`).
*However* this is in runbot_merge, turns out in
fafa7ef437 some refactoring was done in
order to override the notification and customise it for *forward
ports* with a failed status... except that override never called its
`super()`, so as soon as forwardport is installed the base
notification stops working, and that's been that since October
2019 (had been added in March that year, ignoring deployment lag).
This can be revealed by adding the corresponding check in the
*forwardport* tests, revealing the failure.
This was a pain to track down, thankfully it reproduced relatively
easily locally.
While this could be resolved in the override, might as well fold it
into the base method in furtherance of #789: the mergebot is only
used by odoo, and only with both modules combined, so splitting them
is not useful. And furthermore it things should work fine with the
forwardport installed but unused.
Fixes#894
Without fw-bot being its bearer, "ignore" is a lot less clear than it
used to as it looks to be asking to ignore the PR entirely (as if it
was targeted to an unmanaged branch).
Deprecate this command, and tack on the shortcut to the fw
subcommand. It is slightly sub-par as technically it does not quite
fit with the other subcommands, and furthermore can't be disabled via
fw=default... although maybe it could be? Maybe instead of setting the
limit fw=no could set that value to the forwardport mode, and the
fw_policy users could check that? It would require some more finessing
tho:
- `DEFAULT` would need to be accessible to the author as well as the
reviewers so the author could toggle between `NO` and `DEFAULT`.
- There should probably be a warning of some sort when setting a limit
to an unportable PR.
- The dashboards would need to take `NO` in account (though I guess
that's just defaulting the limit to the target).
Seems like a good idea to better keep track of the log of an Odoo used
to testing, and avoid silently ignoring logged errors.
- intercept odoo's stderr via a pipe, that way we can still write it
back out and pytest is able to read & buffer it, pytest's capfd
would not work correctly: it breaks output capturing (and printing
on failure); and because of the way it hooks in it's unable to
capture from subprocesses inheriting the standard stream, cf
pytest-dev/pytest#4428
- update the env fixture to check that the odoo log doesn't have any
exception on failure
- make that check conditional on the `expect_log_errors` marker, this
way we can mark tests for which we expect errors to be logged, and
assert that that does happen
98aaa910 updated the forwardport notifications system to notify on the
forward ports rather than the source, to try and mitigate or at least
shift some of the spam: spam the followers of the original
source (which might be many people) somewhat less, at the possible
cost of spamming the author and reviewer more because they get a
message per forgotten forward port.
This change aims to alleviate part of the latter, by only notifying on
PRs which actually need to be r+'d, and not notifying on those which
will implicitly "inherit" the reviews. This should cut down on
redundant notifications and let users focus on the important ones.
if the corresponding master PR was approved. That the backfill needs
approval can be considered a race condition: its dual is approved
and *might* have been merged before the freeze, but was not, so a
backfill was needed.
Copying over the approval is a convenience feature with pretty much no
actual risk I can think of.
Fixes#884
Currently webhook secrets are configured per *project* which is an
issue both because different repositories may have different
administrators and thus creates safety concerns, and because multiple
repositories can feed into different projects (e.g. on mergebot,
odoo-dev/odoo is both an ancillary repository to the main RD project,
and the main repository to the minor / legacy master-wowl
project). This means it can be necessary to have multiple projects
share the same secret as well, this then mandates the secret for more
repositories per (1).
This is a pain in the ass, so just detach secrets from projects and
link them *only* to repositories, it's cleaner and easier to manage
and set up progressively.
This requires a lot of changes to the tests, as they all need to
correctly configure the signaling.
For `runbot_merge` there was *some* setup sharing already via the
module-level `repo` fixtures`, those were merged into a conftest-level
fixture which could handle the signaling setup. A few tests which
unnecessarily set up repositories ad-hoc were also moved to the
fixture. But for most of the ad-hoc setup in `runbot_merge`, as well
as `forwardport` where it's all ad-hoc, events sources setup was just
appended as is. This should probably be cleaned up at one point, with
the various requirements collected and organised into a small set of
fixtures doing the job more uniformly.
Fixes#887
- zdiff3 should provide better conflict annotations than diff3
- ORT might also provide less conflicts period
- always perform cherrypicks without rename limit, since we're
re-trying every failure without rename limit, it seems like
unnecessary work, assuming git only ever looks as far as it needs
- also enable copy support maybe...
Fixes#827
Using a regex as the pattern is quite frustrating due to all the
escaping necessary, which in this refactoring I found out I'd missed,
multiple times.
Convert the pattern to something bespoke but not too complicated, we
may want to add anchoring support and a bit more finesse and the
future but for now straightforward "holes" seem to work well. I've
added support for capturing and even named groups even if this as yet
unnecessary and unused.
Fixes#861
[^1]: https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/reference.html#pytest.hookspec.pytest_assertrepr_compare
I have been convinced that this might be an improvement to the affairs
of the people: originally the message was sent to the source PR so we
wouldn't have to ping the author & reviewer and to limit the amount of
spam, *however*:
- we ended up adding pings anyway
- it also pings the followers of the source PR
- it increases the size of the original discussion (especially if was
- originally long)
- it adds steps to fixing the issue as you need to bounce from the
source to the forward ports
Note that this might still notify a lot of people as they might be
made followers of the forward ports automatically, and it increases
the messaging load of the forwardbot significantly. But we'll see how
things go. Worst case scenario, we can revert it back.
Fixes#836
if rebased. Untouched commits (straight merge) remain unalterated, but
all rebased or squashed commits now get signoff and `Related` headers
added on top of the already previously added `part-of`.
Implement by generalising `_build_merge_message` to `_build_message`
and having `add_self_references` delegate to it, removes some of the
redundancy / differential handling.
Update the `part_of` helper to also add the S-O-B header to the PR,
although it currently does not reference the entire forward port
chain.
Fixes#876
Displays the entire batch set as a table, along both
repository (linked PRs) and branch (forward ports). Should provide a
much more complete overview.
Adds a copy of the dashboard as a raster render, to link from the PR:
as usual SVG is shit, content-based viewboxes are hell and having to
duplicate the entire CSS because `<img/>`-linked CSS can't run is
gross. And there's no payoff since the image is not interactible
anyway.
Performing manual ad-hoc table rendering via pillow is not
significantly worse, it works fine and it's possible to do *really*
good conditional request handling (hopefully) because I've basically
got all the information I need right here.
In fact it might make sense to upgrade the regular HTML page with
similar conditional request handling, at least for the last-update
bit if not the etag.
Fixes #771,fixes #770
Initially wanted to skip this only for FW PRs, but after some thinking
I feel this info could still be valuable even for non-fw PRs which
were never merged in the first place.
Requires a few adjustments to not break *everything*: `batch.prs`
excludes closed PRs by default as most processes only expect to be
faced by a closed PR inside a batch, and we *especially* want to avoid
that before the batch is merged (as we'd risk staging a closed PR).
However since PRs don't get removed from batches anymore (and batches
don't get deleted when they have no PRs) we now may have a bunch of
batches whose PRs (usually a single one) are all closed, this has two
major side-effects:
- a new PR may get attached to an old batch full of closed PRs (as
batches are filtered out on being *merged*), which is weird
- the eventual list of batches gets polluted with a bunch of
irrelevant batches which are hard to filter out
The solution is to reintroduce an `active` field, as a stored compute
field based on the state of batch PRs. This way if all PRs of a batch
are closed it switches to inactive, and is automatically filtered out
by search which solves both issues.
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.
Test and refine the handling of batch forward ports around branch
deactivation, especially with differential. Notably, fix an error in
the conversion of the FW process to batches: individual PR limit was
not correctly taken in account during forward port unless *all* PRs
were done, even though that is a primary motivation for the
change.
Partial forward porting should now work correctly, and the detection
and handling of differential next target should be better handled to
boot.
Significantly rework the interplay between batches and PRs being
closed in order to maintain sequencing / consistency of forward port
sequences: previously a batch would get deleted if all its PRs are
closed, but that is an issue when it is part of a forward port
sequence as we now lose information.
Instead, detach the PRs from the batch as before but have the batch
skip unlinking if it has historical value (parent or child
batch). Currently the batch's state is a bit weird as it doesn't get
merged, but...
While at it, significantly simplify `_try_closing` as it turns out to
have a ton of incidental / historical complexity from old attempts at
fixing concurrency issues, which should not be necessary anymore and
in fact actively interfere with the new and more compute-heavy state
of things.
This tests that the new setup *does* allow both removing PRs from a
forward-ported batch (something which may have worked previously
already, anyway) and importantly *adding* PRs to a forward ported
batch.
The updated batch behaves somewhat like a new batch, but it should
retain the history via linking through the batch, and it allows
cross-repo fixes which were not necessary earlier (e.g. because we're
touching an API of repo A which was not used in repo B in earlier
branches, but now is), something which was not really possible before
the refactoring of batches & co.
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
(2337bd8518). 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.
- `merge_date` should be common to an entire batch, so move it there
- remove `Batch.active` which should probably have been removed when
batches were made persistent (can eventually re-add as a proxy for
`merge_date` being set maybe, but for now removing it seems a better
way to catch mistakes)
- update various sites to use `Batch.merge_date` instead of
`Batch.active`
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?
This commit revisits the commands set in order to make it more
regular, and limit inconsistent command-sets, although it includes
pseudo-command aliases for common tasks now removed from the core set.
Hard Errors
===========
The previous iteration of the commands set would ignore any
non-command term in a command line. This has been changed to hard
error (and ignoring the entire thing) if any command is unknown or
invalid.
This fixes inconsistent / unexpected interpretations where a user
sends a command, then writes a novel on the same line some words of
which happen to *also* be commands, leading to merge states they did
not expect. They should now be told to fuck off.
Priority Restructuring
----------------------
The numerical priority system was pretty messy in that it confused
"staging priority" (in ways which were not entirely straightforward)
with overrides to other concerns.
This has now being split along all the axis, with separate command
subsets for:
- staging prioritisation, now separated between `default`, `priority`,
and `alone`,
- `default` means PRs are picked by an unspecified order when
creating a staging, if nothing better is available
- `priority` means PRs are picked first when staging, however if
`priority` PRs don't fill the staging the rest will be filled with
`default`, this mode did not previously exist
- `alone` means the PRs are picked first, before splits, and only
`alone` PRs can be part of the staging (which usually matches the
modename)
- `skipchecks` overrides both statuses and approval checks, for the
batch, something previously implied in `p=0`, but now
independent. Setting `skipchecks` basically makes the entire batch
`ready`.
For consistency this also sets the reviewer implicitly: since
skipchecks overrides both statuses *and approval*, whoever enables
this mode is essentially the reviewer.
- `cancel` cancels any ongoing staging when the marked PR becomes
ready again, previously this was also implied (in a more restricted
form) by setting `p=0`
FWBot removal
=============
While the "forwardport bot" still exists as an API level (to segregate
access rights between tokens) it has been removed as an interaction
point, as part of the modules merge plan. As a result,
fwbot stops responding
----------------------
Feedback messages are now always sent by the mergebot, the
forward-porting bot should not send any message or notification
anymore.
commands moved to the merge bot
-------------------------------
- `ignore`/`up to` simply changes bot
- `close` as well
- `skipci` is now a choice / flag of an `fw` command, which denotes
the forward-port policy,
- `fw=default` is the old `ci` and resets the policy to default,
that is wait for the PR to be merged to create forward ports, and
for the required statuses on each forward port to be received
before creating the next
- `fw=skipci` is the old `skipci`, it waits for the merge of the
base PR but then creates all the forward ports immediately (unless
it gets a conflict)
- `fw=skipmerge` immediately creates all the forward ports, without
even waiting for the PR to be merged
This is a completely new mode, and may be rather broken as until
now the 'bot has always assumed the source PR had been merged.
approval rework
---------------
Because of the previous section, there is no distinguishing feature
between `mergebot r+` = "merge this PR" and `forwardbot r+` = "merge
this PR and all its parent with different access rights".
As a result, the two have been merged under a single `mergebot r+`
with heuristics attempting to provide the best experience:
- if approving a non-forward port, the behavior does not change
- else, with review rights on the source, all ancestors are approved
- else, as author of the original, approves all ancestors which descend
from a merged PR
- else, approves all ancestors up to and including the oldest ancestor
to which we have review rights
Most notably, the source's author is not delegated on the source or
any of its descendants anymore. This might need to be revisited if it
provides too restrictive.
For the very specialized need of approving a forward-port *and none of
its ancestors*, `review=` can now take a comma (`,`) separated list of
pull request numbers (github numbers, not mergebot ids).
Computed State
==============
The `state` field of pull requests is now computed. Hopefully this
makes the status more consistent and predictable in the long run, and
importantly makes status management more reliable (because reference
datum get updated naturally flowing to the state).
For now however it makes things more complicated as some of the states
have to be separately signaled or updated:
- `closed` and `error` are now separate flags
- `merge_date` is pulled down from forwardport and becomes the
transition signal for ready -> merged
- `reviewed_by` becomes the transition signal for approval (might be a
good idea to rename it...)
- `status` is computed from the head's statuses and overrides, and
*that* becomes the validation state
Ideally, batch-level flags like `skipchecks` should be on, well, the
batch, and `state` should have a dependency on the batch. However
currently the batch is not a durable / permanent member of the system,
so it's a PR-level flag and a messy pile.
On notable change is that *forcing* the state to `ready` now does that
but also sets the reviewer, `skipchecks`, and overrides to ensure the
API-mediated readying does not get rolled back by e.g. the runbot
sending a status.
This is useful for a few types of automated / programmatic PRs
e.g. translation exports, where we set the state programmatically to
limit noise.
recursive dependency hack
-------------------------
Given a sequence of PRs with an override of the source, if one of the
PRs is updated its descendants should not have the override
anymore. However if the updated PR gets overridden, its descendants
should have *that* override.
This requires some unholy manipulations via an override of `modified`,
as the ORM supports recursive fields but not recursive
dependencies (on a different field).
unconditional followup scheduling
---------------------------------
Previously scheduling forward-port followup was contigent on the FW
policy, but it's not actually correct if the new PR is *immediately*
validated (which can happen now that the field is computed, if there
are no required statuses *or* all of the required statuses are
overridden by an ancestor) as nothing will trigger the state change
and thus scheduling of the fp followup.
The followup function checks all the properties of the batch to port,
so this should not result on incorrect ports. Although it's a bit more
expensive, and will lead to more spam.
Previously this would not happen because on creation of a PR the
validation task (commit -> PR) would still have to execute.
Misc Changes
============
- If a PR is marked as overriding / canceling stagings, it now does
so on retry not just when setting initially.
This was not handled at all previously, so a PR in P0 going into
error due to e.g. a non-deterministic bug would be retried and still
p=0, but a current staging would not get cancelled. Same when a PR
in p=0 goes into error because something was failed, then is updated
with a fix.
- Add tracking to a bunch of relevant PR fields.
Post-mortem analysis currently generally requires going through the
text logs to see what happened, which is annoying.
There is a nondeterminism / inconsistency in the tracking which
sometimes leads the admin user to trigger tracking before the bot
does, leading to the staging tracking being attributed to them
during tests, shove under the carpet by ignoring the user to whom
that tracking is attributed.
When multiple users update tracked fields in the same transaction
all the changes are attributed to the first one having triggered
tracking (?), I couldn't find why the admin sometimes takes over.
- added and leveraged support for enum-backed selection fields
- moved variuous fields from forwardport to runbot_merge
- fix a migration which had never worked and which never run (because
I forgot to bump the version on the module)
- remove some unnecessary intermediate de/serialisation
fixes#673, fixes#309, fixes#792, fixes#846 (probably)
- move all commands parsing to runbot_merge as part of the long-term
unification effort (#789)
- set up an actual parser-ish structure to parse the commands to
something approaching a sum type (fixes#507)
- this is mostly prep for reworking the commands set (#673), although
*strict command parsing* has been implemented (cf update to
`test_unknown_commands`)
Not sure why I didn't think about it previously (in #357), but it
would make sense for the entire batch creation to be atomic and thus
under the same lock.
The commit during forward porting also makes a lot less sense: it was
a failed early attempt at resolving the problem by hoping we'd win the
race with the webhook (commit before the webhook hit). By locking the
PRs table to update, we actually resolved it.
But since all that happens then is a few updates and then a commit by
the cron itself (it commits per batch), it's probably good enough to
leave the entire thing under the same lock. This means we lock out
other interactions a bit longer, but since the span is still just the
forward port of a single batch it should not be too much of an issue
outside of post-freeze recovery thingie.
The bootstrap version was freezed during a previous migration to avoid
loosing to much time adapting the style again to fit the previous
look and feel.
Anyway, the latest version of bootsrap offers more flexibility about
themes, and it could be a good oportunity to modernise a little the
runbot interface and answer to long lasting requests.
The main part of the adaptation is to tweak colors to match the
previous style, and adapt some class in xml views.
Some css rules are also tweaked to keep the same looks without the need
to rewrite xml views too much, this could be done in a future commit.
Continuation of 327500bc83 for an other
edge case of closing a PR to a detached branch with a merged
descendant. The mergebot would:
- warn on the parent about it being detached due to being closed
- then warn on the child about it being detached due to the parent
being closed (despite it being merged already)
- then warn the parent *again* due to the child being detached
At least some of those messages were still produced by the test case,
stop them.
Issue was noticed on odoo/odoo#145969 and odoo/odoo#145984 due to 16.2
being deactivated.
The notification is both noise and confusing: we're telling the
author (and reviewer, and anyone else subscribed) that they need to
merge a merged PR.
Fixes#855
When reparenting a commit (mostly when inserting a new forwardport in
an existing chain after a freeze / branch insertion), the new source
should be the source of the new parent (which is likely a not-change
of the source).
This was miscomputed to the root of the new parent, which often
matches but breaks if there was a conflict or a mid-port update,
leading to inconsistent presentation. Nothing critical, just somewhat
annoying.
