There is no check or unique index, so nothing actually prevents having
multiple fw tasks for the same batch.
In that case, if we try to update the limit the handler will crash
because the code assumes a single forwardport task per batch.
Triggered by nle on odoo/odoo#201394 probably while trying to recover
from the incident of March 13/14 (which was not going to work as the
forwardport queue itself was hosed, see two commits above for the
reason).
For historical reasons pretty much all tests used to use the contexts
legal/cla and ci/runbot. While there are a few tests where we need the
interactions of multiple contexts and that makes sense, on the vast
majority of tests that's just extra traffic and noise in the
test (from needing to send multiple statuses unnecessarily).
In fact on the average PR where everything passes by default we could
even remove the required statuses entirely...
Should limit the risk of cases where the fork contains outdated
versions of the reference branches and we end up with odd outdated /
not up to date basis for branches & updates, which can lead to
confusing situations.
Skipmerge creates forward-ports before the source PR is even merged.
- In a break from the norm, skipmerge will create forwardports even in
the face of conflicts.
- It will also not *detach* pull requests in case of conflicts, this
is so the source PR can be updated and the update correctly cascades
through the stack (likewise for any intermediate PR though *that*
will detach as usual).
Note that this doesn't really look at outstandings, especially as they
were recently updated, so it might need to be fixed up in case of
freakout, but I feel like that should not be too much of an issue, the
authors will just get their FW reminders earlier than usual. If that's
a hassle we can always update the reminder job to ignore forward ports
whose source is not merged I guess.
Fixes#418
- don't *fail* in `_compute_identity`, it causes issues when the token
is valid but doesn't have `user:email` access as the request is
aborted and saving doesn't work
- make `github_name` and `github_email` required rather than ad-hoc
requiring them in `_compute_identity` (which doesn't work correctly)
- force copy of `github_name` and `github_email`, with o2ms being
!copy this means duplicating projects now works out of the box (or
should...)
Currently errors in `_compute_identity` are reported via logging which
is not great as it's not UI visible, should probably get moved to
chatter eventually but that's not currently enabled on projects.
Fixes#990
Like limit, fw=no should restrict the table length, in this case to
just the current branch (as we're not forward porting at all).
Before this, `no` would not be applied as a limit visually, the table
would still go up to the main branch which is very confusing.
Fixes#962
The UX around the split of limit and forward port policy (and
especially moving "don't forward port" to the policy) was not really
considered and caused confusion for both me and devs: after having
disabled forward porting, updating the limit would not restore it, but
there would be no indication of such an issue.
This caused odoo/enterprise#68916 to not be forward ported at merge
(despite looking for all the world like it should be), and while
updating the limit post-merge did force a forward-port that
inconsistency was just as jarring (also not helped by being unable to
create an fw batch via the backend UI because reasons, see
10ca096d86).
Fix this along most axis:
- Notify the user and reset the fw policy if the limit is updated
while `fw=no`.
- Trigger a forward port if the fw policy is updated (from `no`) on a
merged PR, currently only sources.
- Add check & warning to limit update process so it does *not* force a
port (though maybe it should under the assumption that we're
updating the limit anyway? We'll see).
Fixes#953
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?)
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
- 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
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
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
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.
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`)
Currently, once a source PR has been merged it's not possible to set
or update a limit, which can be inconvenient (e.g. people might have
forgotten to set it, or realise after the fact that setting one is not
useful, or might realise after the fact that they should *unset* it).
This PR relaxes that constraint (which is not just a relaxation as it
requires a bunch of additional work and validation), it should now be
possible to:
- update the limit to any target, as long as that target is at or
above the current forwardport tip's
- with the exception of a tip being forward ported, as that can't be
cancelled
- resume a forward port stopped by a previously set limit (just
increase it to whatever)
- set a limit from any forward-port PR
- set a limit from a source, post-merge
The process should also provide pretty chatty feedback:
- feedback on the source and closest root
- feedback about adjustments if any (e.g. setting the limit to B but
there's already a forward port to C, the 'bot should set the limit
to C and tell you that it happened and why)
Fixes#506
Current system makes it hard to iterate feedback messages and make
them clearer, this should improve things a touch.
Use a bespoke model to avoid concerns with qweb rendering
complexity (we just want GFM output and should not need logic).
Also update fwbot test setup to always configure an fwbot name, in
order to avoid ping messages closing the PRs they're talking
about, that took a while to debug, and given the old message I assume
I'd already hit it and just been too lazy to fix. This requires
updating a bunch of tests as fwbot ping are sent *to*
`fp_github_name`, but sent *from* the reference user (because that's
the key we set).
Note: noupdate on CSV files doesn't seem to work anymore, which isn't
great. But instead set tracking on the template's templates, it's not
quite as good but should be sufficient.
Fixes#769
- currently disabling staging only works globally, allow disabling on
a single branch
- use a toggle
- remove a pair of tests which work specifically with `fp_target`,
can't work with `active` (probably)
- cleanup search of possible and active stagings, add relevant
indexes and use direct search of relevant branches instead of
looking up from the project
- also use toggle button for `active` on branches
- shitty workaround for upgrading DB: apparently mail really wants to
have a `user_id` to do some weird thing, so need to re-add it after
resetting everything
Fixes#727
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
There was already a check, but the way the check behaved
means *detached* PRs would not be prevented from setting their
forward-port, despite that not doing anything.
Fix it by checking if the current PR has a source, not a parent.
Fixes#465
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 closing a PR, github completely separates the events "close the
PR" and "comment on the PR" (even when using "comment and close" in
the UI, a feature which isn't even available in the API). It doesn't
aggregate the notifications either, so users following the PR for
one reason or another get 2 notifications / mails every time a PR
gets merged, which is a lot of traffic, even more so with
forward-ported PRs multiplying the amount of PRs users are involved
in.
The comment on top of the closure itself is useful though: it allows
tracking exactly where and how the PR was merged from the PR, this
information should not be lost.
While more involved than a simple comment, *deployments* seem like
a suitable solution: they allow providing links as permanent
information / metadata on the PRs, and apparently don't trigger
notifications to users.
Therefore, modify the "close" method so it doesn't do
"comment-and-close", and provide a way to close PRs with non-comment
feedback: when the feedback's message is structured (parsable as
json) assume it's intended as deployment-bound notifications.
TODO: maybe add more keys to the feedback event payload, though in my
tests (odoo/runbot#222) none of the deployment metadata
outside of "environment" and "target_url" is listed on the PR
UI
Fixes#224
When posting a reminder that there are open / waiting forward ports on
a source PR, also post *which* PRs those are.
While at it, move the cron code in a proper python file (so we can use
stuff from odoo.tools), and fix display_name so we can straight use
display_name as a github ref' ({owner}/{repo}#{number}). This impacts
log-grepping but it seems like an improvement nonetheless.
Closesodoo/runbot#228
User should probably be warned when they try to set the limit ("up
to") in a context where it's going to be ignored:
* on a forward port PR (should be set on the source)
* on a merged source (should be set before the PR is merged)
Closes#213
