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
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
In some cases, feedback to the PR author that an r+ is redundant went
missing.
This turns out to be due to the convolution of the handling of
approval on forward-port, and the fact that the target PR is treated
exactly like its ancestors: if the PR is already approved the approval
is not even attempted (and so no feedback if it's incorrect).
Straighten up this bit and add a special case for the PR being
commented on, it should have the usual feedback if in error or already
commented on.
Furthermore, update `PullRequests._pr_acl` to kinda work out of the
box for forward-port: if the current PR is a forward port,
`is_reviewer` should check delegation on all ancestors, there doesn't
seem to be any reason to split "source_reviewer", "parent_reviewer",
and "is_reviewer".
Fixes#939
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).
Move staging cancellation to the batch, remove its (complicated)
handling from the PRs.
This loses some precision in the cancellation message, but that could
likely be recovered (in part) by adding more precise checks &
diagnostic extractions in the compute.
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`)
