Comments which are too long cause `logging` itself to crash, which
kinda sucks. And long comments seem very unlikely to have anything for
the mergebot to do besides.
So just ignore them at intake. Limit is set to 5000 because there
needs to be a limit somewhere and that's about the extent of it.
Noticed that while writing up the docs on the wiki, seems like an
unnecessary restriction, and an inconvenient one to boot: the author
could r+, then realize they forgot to do an update they needed to do
on the fw, so they should be able to cancel the staging without
needing a reviewer.
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.
d4fa1fd353 added tracking to changes
from *comments* (as well as a few hacks around authorship transfer),
however it missed two things:
First, it set the `change-author` during comments handling only, so
changes from the `PullRequest` hook e.g. open, synchronise, close,
edit, don't get attributed to their actual source, and instead just
fall back to uid(1). This is easy enough to fix as the `sender` is
always provided, that can be resolved to a partner which is then set
as the author of whatever changes happen.
Second, I actually missed one of the message hooks: there's both
`_message_log` and `_message_log_batch` and they don't call one
another, so both have to be overridden in order for tracking to be
consistent. In this case, specifically, the *creation* of a tracked
object goes through `_message_log_batch` (since that's a very generic
message and so works on every tracked object created during the
transaction... even though batch has a message per record anyway...)
while *updates* go through `_message_log`.
Fixes#895
- 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
The commit cron needs to be triggered any time we:
- create a new commit
- update a commit to set its `to_check`
So do that in create and write as well as the SQL query in the
webhook handler.
This should mean we don't need the periodic cron anymore, but for
safety's sake run it on 30mn for now.
TBF even if we miss triggers, the next `status` webhook hitting will
check all the relevant commits anyway...
This is useful to repro issues.
60c4b5141d added `inverse=readonly`
hooks to various newly computed fields to ensure they can not be *written*
to, either overwriting the content (stored) or silently being
dropped (non-stored).
However because they're `inverse` hooks this had the effect of making
them writeable from the backend UI since the ORM uses `inverse` as a
signal to make the field writeable. This then caused the web client to
send stuff for those fields, which are not necessarily even visible in
the form, leading to write errors when trying to save a PR creation.
By marking the fields as `readonly` explicitly we make sure that
doesn't happen, and we can create PRs from the backend UI (kinda, I
think the label is still an issue).
The method was not marked as a create, following which it did not
allow creating commits via the UI (annoying for testing / reproducing
issues involving statuses).
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
The backend links in the PR dashboard were gated behind the
`group_user` (internal user) group, however turns out while internal
users have read access to PRs they don't have access to ancillary
objects (e.g. batches, stagings, the link between stagings and
batches), and I think the only way to fix the issue would be to move
it to an optional inheritance (inheritance + group), because `groups`
on view nodes only hides the content without removing it.
I believe in more recent Odoo versions this actually works correctly,
so that might actually be more of an incentive to upgrade...
Previous version would always hide the title if the PR was
blocked (e.g. blocked or failed), turns out there are people who
actually use the PR title on the main dashboard, so suppressing that
is inconvenient for them.
Try to show the PR title if available, and add the blocked message if
present.
- Instead of warning about the merge method on ready PRs, also warn on
*approved* (but exclude staged just cuz), as that's really when the
user wants to know that they forgot to set the merge method
- The cron only triggers hourly, but *if* a user approves a PR *and*
the merge method is not set yet, chances are good they'll need a
reminder (if they `r+ rebase-merge` or w/e the cron will just ignore
the PR and it's no skin off our back), so `_trigger` the cron for
validation.
- Also do the same when skipchecks is set as it's very similar.
In reality we might want to hook off of the state transitioning to
reviewed but I'm not sure there's good ways to do that (triggering a
cron inside a compute doesn't seem like a good idea).
Update a pair of tests which would approve a multi-commit PR without
setting a merge method, just because the helper they use to build the
PR happens to create multiple commits.
Fix#891
This is a low issue as the prs of a commit are only listed from the
form so the compute is pretty much always called with a single record,
but still an unforced error which can easily be fixed.
`_schedule_fp_followup` correctly iterates on `self`, however some of
the per-iteration work did not handle that correctly, and would try to
access fields on `self`.
Thankfully in most cases it only works on one batch at a time
anyway, *however* if multiple PRs share a HEAD (which is weird but...)
then `_validate` is called on multiple PRs, which through the
forwardport override leads to `_schedule_fp_followup` being called on
multiple batches, and failing when trying to access the `fw_policy`.
Fix by avoiding the misuse of `self` in the two locations where it's
doing something other than accessing `env`.
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).
Replace the unclear "unchecked" and "unreviewed" by "missing statuses"
and "missing r+", which are hopefully clearer as they better match
other lingo.
Also increase font for attributes, as size 10 was a bit small.
And finally add staging state to caching key, to differentiate "ready"
from "staged" pictures in gh's cache. "ready" should not be necessary
as it ought be implied by the label.
And filter it to only consider branches in the same project as the PR,
and a lower sequence than its target. That way it's harder to fuck up
when trying to set limits from the backend.
Currently this just silently returns a 404. Since repos are gated by
default (only accessible to internal users) this can get very
confusing when trying to setup a new repo or when forgetting this
information when writing tests.
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
Setting the PR state directly really doesn't work as it doesn't
correctly save (and can get overwritten by any dependency of which
there are many).
This caused setting odoo/odoo#165777 in error to fail, leading to it
being re-staged (and failing) repeatedly, and the PR being spammed
with comments.
- create a more formal helper for preventing directly setting computed
functions (without an actual inverse)
- replace direct state setting by setting the corresponding dependency
e.g. `error` for error and `skipchecks` to force a PR to ready
- add a `skipchecks` inverse to the PR so it can also set itself as
reviewed, and is convenient, might be worth also adding stuff to
`Batch.write`
Because one of the previous commits adds the duration of the staging
to the staging dropdown toggles, it's now much longer, and by default
the text does not wrap so it looks like shit and goes completely out
the column "CSS is awesome" style.
Update the style of the dropdown toggles specifically to allow text
wrapping. Also align them left instead of centering, because the text
makes a centered layout super ugly.
44084e303c changed the interpretation
and schema of the `statuses_cache` field on stagings, but I forgot to
add a migration, so it would just blow up on opening the home
dashboard or the staging lists.
The dashboard can be a bit unclear as to the state of a PR when
everything's gone well. Make it more clear / explicit that it's ready
or staged.
Fixes#888
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
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
Add support for the ability to validate *stagings* over RPC rather
than via webhook. This may later be expanded to PRs as well.
The core motivation for this is to avoid bouncing through github which
sometimes drops the ball on statuses, and it's frustrating to have a
staging time out because GH fucked up.
Implemented via RPC, requiring both the staging itself (by id) and the
head commit being affected, as that is necessary to know what CIs are
required for that head and correctly report cross branch on the
various PRs.
Fix#881 (kinda)
Rather than compute staging state directly from commit statuses, copy
statuses into the staging's `statuses_cache` then compute state based
on that. Also refactor `statuses` and `staging_end` to be computed
based on the statuses cache instead of the commits (or `state`
update).
The goal is to allow non-webhook validation of stagings, for direct
communications between the mergebot and the CI (mostly runbot).
Github makes it painfully difficult to access the statuses (especially
their URL / related build) once a PR has been merged, as it's
necessary to find the last non-staging commit mention / update in
order to find its statuses checkbox thingie, open that, and access the
statuses.
The mergebot has all the links, so it can just display them in the
merged mode as well rather than only display them in open mode. That
way even on a merged PR the statuses are just two clicks away.
Fixes#873
Computed on the fly for now. Formatted nicely in the frontend, there
does not seem to be any sort of duration widget in the backend so
just display the integer number of seconds.
Fixes#865
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
Shove a bunch of stuff in notebook tabs, add a few
affordances (e.g. github and frontend links, links from m2m), surface
a few missing fields.
Hopefully makes the backend form both easier to navigate and easier to
administrate from.
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
Merged PRs should have a batch which should have a staging, this makes
the treatment uniform across the board and avoids funky data which is
hard to place or issues when reconstructing history.
Also create synthetic batches & stagings for older freezes (and bumps)
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.
Batch ordering in stagings is important in order to correctly
reconstitute the full project history.
In the old mergebot, since batches are created on the fly during
staging this information is reified by the batch ids. But since batch
ids are now persistent and there is no relationship between the
creation of a batch and its merging (especially not relative to other
batches) it's an issue as reconstituting sub-staging git history would
be impossible.
Which is not the worst, but is not great.
The solution is to reify the join table between stagings and batches
in order for *that* to keep history (simply via the sequential PK),
and in converting to the new system carefully generate the new links
in an order matching the old batch ids.
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.
This is definitely non-trivial, due to the structural changes and the
amounts of stuff to move around (e.g. lift from PR to batch), as well
as the reification of previously non-existent relations (batches,
batch history, ...) which sometimes uncovers inconsistencies in the
current state of the mergebot (some of which are the result of bugs,
the bug got fixed but the nonsense it generated was left untouched).
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.
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.
In case of PRs not being ready, don't just say the PRs are waiting for
CI even though they might be unreviewed, and make a difference
between *waiting* for CI (pending) and having failed CI.
It's a bit weird and inconsistent to have a PR being staged while
unreviewed or unapproved or w/e. If we compute the state based on
skipchecks then everything is consistent.
Also remove the implicit override of all statuses when explicitly
marking the pr as `ready`, it risks creating difficult to understand
states, and it's unnecessary since `skipchecks` gets set.
Also as with setting skipchecks, sets the current user as reviewer on
all PRs of the batch without a reviewer.
- remove the `legal/cla` and `ci/runbot` context names, which I use a
lot for historical reasons but fundamentally they're not useful to
the tests, the `default` context is generally simpler.
- remove `make_branch` helper as we don't actually use branch
protection and at the end of the day it doesn't do much else
- convert a few explicit PR lookups to the project-wide `to_pr` helper
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.
Because `alone` (formerly p != 2) is selected before split PRs, if a
prioritised PR gets split (or a split PR gets prioritised) it will be
staged once as prioritised, and again because split.
Improve the selection of ready batches to exclude split batches
upstream, such that they don't have to be rechecked over and over, and
their priorities don't cause us issues.
Simplifies the `ready_prs` query a bit and allows it to be converted
to an ORM search, by moving the priority check outside. This also
allows the caller to not need to post-process the records list
anywhere near the previous state of affairs.
`ready_prs` now returns *either* the "alone" batches, or the non-alone
batches, rather than mixing both into a single sequence. This requires
correctly applying the search filters to not retrieve priority of
batches in error or targeting other branches.
Staging readiness is a batch-level concerns, and many of the markers
are already there though a few need to be aggregated from the PRs. As
such, staging has no reason to be performed in terms of PRs anymore,
it should be performed via batches directly.
There is a bit of a mess in order not to completely fuck up when
retargeting PRs (implicitly via freeze wizard, or explicitely) as for
now we're moving PRs between batches in order to keep the
batches *mostly* target-bound.
Some of the side-effects in managing the coherence of the targeting
and moving PRs between batches is... not great. This might need to be
revisited and cleaned up with those scenarios better considered.
- `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?
Not sure it's going to be useful but it's hard to know if we can't
test it. The intent is mostly the ability to prioritize throughput (or
attempt to) during high-load events, if we can favour staging N
new batches over a split's N/2 we might be able to merge more crap.
But maybe not, we'll see, either way now it's here and seems to more
or less work.
Fixes#798
Because the mergebot crons are on such a tight scheduling, and just
them finding out they have nothing to do can take a while, disabling
them can be a chore. Disabling staging via the project is much less
likely to cause issues as the projects don't normally (or ever?) get
exclusively locked, so they can generally be written to at any moment.
Furthermore, if we ever get in a situation where we have multiple
active projects (not really the case currently, we have multiple
projects but only one is really active) it's less disruptive to
disable stagings on a single specific project.
Fixes#860
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`)
Sadly m2ms don't support tracking, so add a bunch of ad-hoc tracking
to the override rights in order to know who, what, when at least.
Do the same for the review rights although maybe tracking works for
those.
It might not be a huge amount of extra work since we're never actually
retrieving the rows, but it still seems completely unnecessary.
Sadly we can't do something cleaner like an aggregation, because
aggregating requires moving the locking query to a subquery, and
experimentally that seems slower than just ignoring / discarding the
result set.
If an untracked PR is closed, especially on an inactive or untracked
branch, the closer (or author) almost certainly don't care to receive
3 different notifications on the subject.
The fix requires a schema change in order to track that we're fetching
the PR due to a `closed` event, as in other cases we may still want to
notify the user that we received the request (and it just happened to
resolve to a closed PR).
Fixes#857
- correctly handle projects without a secret set, we don't want the
requests to blow up by trying to `strip()` a `False` or `None`, that
is dumb, who would do that?
- provide better reporting on signature mismatch: which repo we tried
to access, and the full list of headers
- log when there was no signature matching, either because there was
no signature in the request and no secret on the project, or because
the request is signed but no secret is configured on the repo
`gc --prune` can not take a *separate* parameter, it has to be part of
the same arg (the `=` is not optional), otherwise the `gc` call blows
up.
So use the positional form of the git command to generate the correct
invocation, Python-level `foo=bar` generates a split-style option in
two args which does not please git.
Before this, we would check if a repository had a name and run
maintenance on it, leading to repeated (but unnoticed until now
because I didn't monitor it) tracebacks as the maintenance cron would
fail to find the local repo then run maintenance on nowhere anyway.
Also augment the repo-finding process to try and get better
information about what it's doing when it fails, rather than failing
completely silently.
The signature validation code seems correct, but there are validation
failure in production, increase logging around webhook requests to
try and diagnose things better:
- dump the *entire* body to the github_requests logfile
- add the received & computed signatures to the log error
Turns out I've always been mistaken about the handling of quotes
*inside* shell parameters, apparently they are always consumed by the
shell unless nested so
--foo="bar"
reaches the underlying program as
--foo=bar
This means when using subprocess (without shell=True), adding the
quotes leads to mishandling of the parameters (as the subprocess now
has quotes it's not equipped to deal with).
This exact error is made in the `--pretty` parameter of git show,
locally this results in the author name and the committer email being
terminated by double quotes although somehow other layers seem to
exclude those from the end result (I assume `commit-tree` strips the
quotes from the envvars under the assumption that users can mistakenly
quote them or something?
Anyway while it does not seem harmful (so far), better safe than
sorry.
Add intermediate forks to a pair of tests, because github now (?)
requires being able to write on a branch to create a PR from it, so
the non-collaborator reviewers were not able to create a PR from a
branch created by user.
Github delivery delays keep getting worse. Depending on what comes
before `to_pr`, this leads it to fail more often as it runs before the
PR it's looking for was signaled to the mergebot.
In order to mitigate this issue, add a wait loop in `to_pr`, waiting
up to 4 seconds for the PR it's looking for before aborting.
Also replace manual lookups by `to_pr` in every method of
`TestPRUpdate` while at it since it hit a few of the issues. And
remove the xfail test case since it seems unlikely github will change
tack (maybe? could be worth testing to be sure).
Reverts commit 85a7890023 which
untrimmed the commits: while it's *probably* true that git and
github's APIs differ in their treatment of whitespace (in that git
pretty much always terminates the commit message with a newline while
github does not, as far as I understand, though I didn't really
validate it) the issue was that github also trims on *output* when
fetching over the API, something the fake did not do.
So rather than update the test data I should have fixed the fake, but
I failed to realise that at the time. I only realised when I decided
to re-run against github actual (something I rarely do anymore as it's
painfully slow) and it went on to choke on every message I'd updated.
The logging line was copied over from the github-api version, but it
was not correctly fixed up to match, leading to a lot of spam on
stderr when debug is enabled (aka spams journalctl on the production
server).
Splat the logging call out of `rebase` and into the various callers,
so they have access to the pr object to log it.
Forgot to bump the version when creating the migration. Also convert
the migration to a single sql query, although the migration will never
run because I ran the query manually to fix things up after finding
out the data was "dirty" since the new code (assuming only modern
statuses) was merged without running the migration.
Thankfully it looks like the impact was not too severe (because the
legacy statuses should only be present on very old commits / PRs), I
don't remember when I deployed the update but apparently just a pair
of PRs got affected, because their `previous_failure` was the old
style and thus broke the "new failure" check.
Forgot to deref the id of the staging we're trying to lock, so the
specific case where we start a freeze with a bump PR and an
outstanding staging in master would instantly blow up.
The low-level APIs used by the staging process don't do any merge
check, so because of the way Git works it's possible for them to merge
commits with content as empty commits, e.g. if something was merged
then backported and the backport was merged on top. This should
trigger a merge failure as we don't really want to merge newly
empty. This is a feature which some high level commands of git
support, kind-of, e.g. by default `git rebase --interactive` will ask
about newly empty commits.
Take care to allow merging already-empty commits, as these do have a
use for signaling, freezes, ....
Fixes#809
Prepares the possibility of either more direct communication with the
CI platform(s) or just assuming CI has gotten reliable enough and
colleagues intelligent enough that this is not an issue anymore
because they've stopped pushing empty branches (which we know is not
the case).
Fixes#806
During the 17.0 freezeathon, the freeze wizard blew up with
MergeError: merge-tree: {oid} - not something we can merge
Turns out when freezes were moved to local
(4d2c0f86e1) I forgot to fetch the heads
of the release and bump PRs into the local repo, so rebasing them atop
their branch would fail because the local repository would just not
find the object being rebased.
I had missed that case in testing as well, but in fairness even if I
had tried testing it I'd likely have missed it: implementation
limitations (shortcuts) of dummy central mean it currently ignores
what objects the client requests and bundles everything it can find
associated with the repository (meaning it sends the entire network).
This is not usually an issue because the test repos are pretty small,
but it means the client can have objects they should not because they
never requested them and might not even be supposed to be aware of
their existence.
Anyway solve by doing the obvious: fetch the heads of the release and
bump PRs at the same time we update the branch being forked off. Also
update the freeze tests to trigger the issue (by creating the release
/ bump PRs in different repos) and running the tests against github
actual to make sure we can actually see them fail (correctly, the
merge error we expect) not via errors in the test), and we do fix
them.
Fixes#821
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
If a branch `foo` is disabled, then `tmp.foo` and `staging.foo` become
unnecessary (with #247 fixed the tmp refs are not used for creating
stagings anymore, but for now they're still used for the "safety
dance" of merging a successful staging into the corresponding
mainline).
Fixes#605
Per the Github webhook documentation:
1. sha1 signatures are deprecated, github recommends sha256 (though
that's unlikely to be a concern anyway), and dummy-central supports
both so it should be no issue.
> If possible, we recommend that you use the x-hub-signature-256
> header for improved security.
2. Non-ascii secrets are supported and should be utf8-encoded to
compute signatures... that's not actually documented as github docs
only mention payload encoding but it seems to make sense anyway.
Also improve the warning message by replacing the signature (which is
useless) by the delivery id (which could allow introspecing the hook
or something).
Currently a user is not notified that the parent of a detached PR
needs to be independently approved and may miss that information. Add
a notification to *that* PR as well.
Fixes#788
The github API has gotten a lot more constraining (with rate
restrictions being newly enforced or added somewhat out of nowhere),
and as importantly a lot less reliable. So move the staging process
off of github and locally, similar to the forward porting
process (whose repo cache is being reused for this).
Fixes#247
Probably less necessary than for the regular staging stuff, but might
as well while at it.
Requires updating one of the test to generate a non-ff push, as
O_CREAT doesn't exist at the git level, and the client (and it is
client-side) only protects against force pushes. So there is no way to
trigger an issue with just the creation of the new branch, it needs to
exist *and point to a non-ancestor commit*.
Also remove a sleep in the ref update loop as there are no ref updates
anymore, until the very final sync via git.
NB: maybe it'd be possible to push both bump and release PRs together
for each repo, but getting which update failed in case of failure
seems difficult.
It has been a consideration for a while, but the pain of subtly
interacting with git via the ignominous CLI kept it back. Then ~~the
fire nation attacked~~ github got more and more tight-fisted (and in
some ways less reliable) with their API.
Staging pretty much just interacts with the git database, so it's both
a facultative github operator (it can just interact with git directly)
and a big consumer of API requests (because the git database endpoints
are very low level so it takes quite a bit of work to do anything
especially when high-level operations like rebase have to be
replicated by hand).
Furthermore, an issue has also been noticed which can be attributed to
using the github API (and that API's reliability getting worse): in
some cases github will fail to propagate a ref update / reset, so when
staging 2 PRs it's possible that the second one is merged on top of
the temporary branch of the first one, yielding a kinda broken commit
(in that it's a merge commit with a broken error message) instead of
the rebase / squash commit we expected.
As it turns out it's a very old issue but only happened very early so
was misattributed and not (sufficiently) guarded against:
- 41bd82244bb976bbd4d4be5e7bd792417c7dae6b (October 8th 2018) was
spotted but thought to be a mergebot issue (might have been one of
the opportunities where ref-checks were added though I can't find
any reference to the commit in the runbot repo).
- 2be25052e147b151d1d8a5bc73cceb351586ce03 (October 15th, 2019) was
missed (or ignored).
- 5a9fe7a7d05a9df7186072a7bffd60c6b428fd0e (July 31st, 2023) was
spotted, but happened at a moment where everything kinda broke
because of github rate-limiting ref updates, so the forensics were
difficult and it was attributed to rate limiting issues.
- f10d03bf0f2e8f88f62a5d8356b84f714196130f (August 24th, 2023) broke
the camel's back (and the head block): the logs were not too
interspersed with other garbage and pretty clear that github ack'd a
ref update, returned the correct oid when checking the ref, then
returned the wrong oid when fetching it later on.
No Working Copy
===============
The working copy turns out to not be necessary, the plumbing commands
we *need* work just fine on a bare repository.
Working without a WC means we had to reimplement the high level
operations (rebase) by hand much as we'd done previously, *but* we
needed to do that anyway as git doesn't seem to provide any way to
retrieve the mapping when rebasing/cherrypicking, and cherrypicking by
commit doesn't work well as it can't really find the *merge base* it
needs.
Forward-porting can almost certainly be implemented similarly (with
some overhead), issue #803 has been opened to keep track of the idea.
No TMP
======
The `tmp.` branches are no more, the process of creating stagings is
based entirely around oids, if staging something fails we can just
abandon the oids (they'll be collected by the weekly GC), we only
need to update the staging branches at the very end of the process.
This simplifies things a fair bit.
For now we have stopped checking for visibility / backoff as we're
pushing via git, hopefully it is a more reliable reference than the
API.
Commmit Message Formatting
==========================
There's some unfortunate churn in the test, as the handling of
trailing newlines differs between github's APIs and git itself.
Fixes#247
PS: It might be a good idea to use pygit2 instead of the CLI
eventually, the library is typed which is nice, and it avoids
shelling out although that's really unlikely to be a major cost.
Necessary to create commits *as* the mergebot without going through
the github API. Copy of the improved version from forwardport. *Not*
an override, to avoid unnecessarily triggering one or the other which
is confusing and weird.
Move *almost* all the staging code to free functions, in a separate
module, and extensively typed.
The only bits which didn't move are:
- the entry point (the cron hook), because it has to be a model method
in order to be called
- the `_build_merge_message` method, because it needs to be
overridable
There's also a bit of an import mess, because the cron &
`_build_merge_message` need to call into the new module, but the new
module wants the types they belong to, so it's a bit circular.
If the stagings are going to be created locally (via a git working
copy rather than the github API), the mergebot part needs to have
access to the cache, so move the cache over. Also move the maintenance
cron.
In an extermely minor way, this prefigures the (hopeful) eventual
merging of the ~~planes~~ modules.
- add formatting for a bunch of backend objects
- add cross-links in order to use toplevel navigation between objects
e.g. project -> branch -> staging -> PR with breadcrumbs instead of
shitty dialog boxes
Relates to #802
When I updated the status storage (including `previous_failure`) for
some reason I didn't just migrate from the old to the new format, and
added bridge functions instead.
This is not really necessary (or useful), so convert all the legacy
data and remove the conversion helpers.
Relates to #802
Mostly a temporary safety feature after the events of 07-31: it's
still not clear whether that was a one-off issue or a change in
policy (I was not able to reproduce locally even doing several
set_refs a second) and the gh support is not super talkative, but it
probably doesn't hurt to commit the workaround until #247 gets
implemented.
On 2023-07-31, around 08:30 UTC, `set_ref` started failing, a lot
(although oddly enough not continuously), with the unhelpful message
that
> 422: Reference cannot be updated
This basically broke all stagings, until a workaround was implemented
by adding a 1s sleep before `set_ref` to ensure no more than 1
`set_ref` per second, which kinda sorta has been the github
recommendation forever but had never been an issue
before. Contributing to this suspicion is that in late 2022, the
documentation of error 422 on `PATCH git/refs/{ref}` was updated to:
> Validation failed, or the endpoint has been spammed.
Still would be nice if GH was clear about it and sent a 429 instead.
Technically the recommendation is:
> If you're making a large number of POST, PATCH, PUT, or DELETE
> requests for a single user or client ID, wait at least one second
> between each request.
So... actually implement that. On a per-worker basis as for the most
part these are serial processes (e.g. crons), we can still get above
the rate limit due to concurrent crons but it should be less likely.
Also take `Retry-After` in account, can't hurt, though we're supposed
to retry just the request rather than abort the entire thing. Maybe a
future update can improve this handling.
Would also be nice to take `X-RateLimit` in account, although that's
supposed to apply to *all* requests so we'd need a second separate
timestamp to track it. Technically that's probably also the case for
`Retry-After`. And fixing #247 should cut down drastically on the API
calls traffic as staging is a very API-intensive process, especially
with the sanity checks we had to add, these days we might be at 4
calls per commit per PR, and up to 80 PRs/staging (5 repositories and
16 batches per staging), with 13 live branches (though realistically
only 6-7 have significant traffic, and only 1~2 get close to filling
their staging slots).
`/runbot_merge/stagings`
========================
This endpoint is a reverse lookup from any number of commits to a
(number of) staging(s):
- it takes a list of commit hashes as either the `commits` or the
`heads` keyword parameter
- it then returns the stagings which have *all* these commits as
respectively commits or heads, if providing all commits for a
project the result should always be unique (if any)
- `commits` are the merged commits, aka the stuff which ends up in the
actual branches
- `heads` are the staging heads, aka the commits at the tip of the
`staging.$name` branches, those may be the same as the corresponding
commit, or might be deduplicator commits which get discarded on
success
`/runbot_merge/stagings/:id`
============================
Returns a list of all PRs in the staging, grouped by batch (aka PRs
which have the same label and must be merged together).
For each PR, the `repository` name, `number`, and `name` in the form
`$repository#$number` get returned.
`/runbot_merge/stagings/:id1/:id2`
==================================
Returns a list of all the *successfully merged* stagings between `id1`
and `id2`, from oldest to most recent. Individual records have the
form:
- `staging` is the id of the staging
- `prs` is the contents of the previous endpoint (a list of PRs
grouped by batch)
`id1` *must* be lower than `id2`.
By default, this endpoint is inclusive on both ends, the
`include_from` and / or `include_to` parameters can be passed with the
`False` value to exclude the corresponding bound from the result.
Related to #768
`auto_session_tracking` causes issues when not specified on the super
old version of the client which is available on ubuntu.
Also disable tracing as it seems less useful than hoped for, and I've
not been using what's been collected so far.
Currently the heads of a staging (both staging heads and merged heads)
are just JSON data on the staging itself. Historically this was
convenient as the heads were mostly of use to the staging process, and
thus accessed directly through the staging essentially exclusively.
However this makes finding stagings from merged commits e.g. for
forensic research almost impossible, because querying based on
the *values* of a JSON map is expensive, and indexing it is difficult.
To make this use case more feasible, split the `heads` field into two
join tables, one for the staging heads and one for the merged heads,
this makes looking for stagings by commits much more
efficient (although the queries may not be trivial). Also add two
utility RPC methods, so that it's possible to query stagings
reasonably easily and efficiently based on a set of commits (branch
heads).
related to #768
Allow filtering stagings by state (success or failure), and provide a
control to explicitly update the staging date limit.
Should make it easier to drill through stagings when looking for
specific information.
Related to #751
Fix outstanding query to make a positive `state` filtering, instead of
negative, matching 3b52b1aace8674259812a76b1566260937dbcacb.
Also manually create a map of stagings (grouped by branch) sharing a
single prefetch set.
For odoo the mergebot home page has 12 branches in the odoo project
and 8 in spreadsheet, 6 stagings each. This means 120 queries to
retrieve all the heads (Odoo stagings have 5 heads and spreadsheet
have 1, but that seems immaterial).
By fixing `_compute_statuses` and creating a single prefetch set for
all stagings of all branches we can fetch all the commits in a single
query instead of 120.
- add support for authorship (not just approval)
- make display counts directly
- fix `state` filter: postgres can't do negative index lookups
- add indexes for author and reviewed_by as we look them up
- ensure we handle the entire source filtering via a single subquery
Closes#778
A few cases of conflict were missing from the provisioning
handler.
They can't really be auto-fixed, so just output a warning and ignore
the entry, that way the rest of the provisioning succeeds.
During the 16.3 freeze an issue was noticed with the concurrency
safety of the freeze wizard (because it blew up, which caused a few
issues): it is possible for the cancelling of an active staging to the
master branch to fail, which causes the mergebot side of the freeze to
fail, but the github state is completed, which puts the entire thing
in a less than ideal state.
Especially with the additional issue that the branch inserter has its
own concurrency issue (which maybe I should fix): if there are
branches *being* forward-ported across the new branch, it's unable to
see them, and thus can not create the now-missing PRs.
Try to make the freeze wizard more resilient:
1. Take a lock on the master staging (if any) early on, this means if
we can acquire it we should be able to cancel it, and it won't
suffer a concurrency error.
2. Add the `process_updated_commits` cron to the set of locked crons,
trying to read the log timeline it looks like the issue was commits
being impacted on that staging while the action had started:
REPEATABLE READ meant the freeze's transaction was unable to see
the update from the commit statuses, therefore creating a diverging
update when it cancelled the staging, which postgres then reported
as a serialization error.
I'd like to relax the locking of the cron (to just FOR SHARE), but I
think it would work, per postgres:
> SELECT FOR UPDATE, and SELECT FOR SHARE commands behave the same as
> SELECT in terms of searching for target rows: they will only find
> target rows that were committed as of the transaction start
> time. However, such a target row might have already been updated (or
> deleted or locked) by another concurrent transaction by the time it
> is found. In this case, the repeatable read transaction will wait
> for the first updating transaction to commit or roll back (if it is
> still in progress). If the first updater rolls back, then its
> effects are negated and the repeatable read transaction can proceed
> with updating the originally found row. But if the first updater
> commits (and actually updated or deleted the row, not just locked
> it) then the repeatable read transaction will be rolled back with
> the message
This means it would be possible to lock the cron, and then get a
transaction error because the cron modified one of the records we're
going to hit while it was running: as far as the above is concerned
the cron's worker had "just locked" the row so it's fine to
continue. However this makes it more and more likely an error will be
hit when trying to freeze (to no issue, but still). We'll have to see
how that ends up.
Fixes#766 maybe
Currently sentry is only hooked from the outside, which doesn't
necessarily provide sufficiently actionable information.
Add some a few hooks to (try and) report odoo / mergebot metadata:
- add the user to WSGI transactions
- add a transaction (with users) around crons
- add the webhook event info to webhook requests
- add a few spans to the long-running crons, when they cover multiple
units per iteration (e.g. a span per branch being staged)
Closes#544
- move sentry configuration and add exception-based filtering
- clarify and reclassify (e.g. from warning to info) a few messages
- convert assertions in rebase to MergeError so they can be correctly
logged & reported, and ignored by sentry, also clarify them
(especially the consistency one)
Related to #544
Largely informed by sentry,
- Fix an inconsistency in staging ref verification, `set_ref`
internally waits for the observed head to match the requested head,
but then `try_staging` would re-check that and immediately fail if
it didn't.
Because github is *eventually* consistent (hopefully) this second
check can fail (and is also an extra API call), breaking staging
unnecessarily, especially as we're still going to wait for the
update to be visible to git.
Remove this redundant check entirely, as github provides no way to
ensure we have a consistent view of anything, it doesn't have much
value and can do much harm.
- Add github request id to one of the sanity check warnings as that
could be a useful thing to send upstream, missing github request ids
in the future should be noted and added.
- Reworked the GH object's calls to be clearer and more coherent:
consistently log the same thing on all GH errors (if `check`),
rather than just on the one without a `check` entry.
Also remove `raise_for_status` and raise `HTTPError` by hand every
time we hit a status >= 400, so we always forward the response body
no matter what its type is.
- Try again to log the request body (in full as it should be pretty
small), also remove stripping since we specifically wanted to add a
newline at the start, I've no idea what I was thinking.
Fixes#735, #764, #544
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
- github logins are case-insensitive while the db field is CI the dict
in which partners are stored for matching is not, And the caller may
not preserve casing.
Thus it's necessary to check the casefolded database values against
casefolded parameters, rather than exactly.
- users may get disabled by mistake or when one leaves the project,
they may also get switched from internal to portal, therefore it is
necessary to re-enable and re-enroll them if they come back.
- while at it remove the user's email when they depart, as they likely
use an organisational email which they don't have access to anymore
Side-note, but remove the limit on the number of users / partners
being created at once: because there are almost no modules in the
mergebot's instance, creating partner goes quite fast (compared to a
full instance), thus the limitation is almost certainly unnecessary
(creating ~300 users seems to take ~450ms).
Fixes ##776
652b1ff9ae wanted to check if a request
was available, however it deref'd the `request` object without
checking it which is not correct: a `request` normally has an
`httprequest`, but the `request` itself might be missing if the
handler is called from e.g. a cron.
Fixes#739
The mismatch diff attribute contains values from the in-db object and
the github PR structure, some of which are explicitly *not*
strings (e.g. the squash flag, possibly the commits # in the future).
As a result, when the squash-flag of a PR differs from the actual the
formatting for diffing blows up, because difflib can't handle
non-strings.
Stringify values between passing them to `format_items`, this way the
string operations on names and values should work correctly.
The mergebot page become a bit slow with the years, it is time to make
small optimisation to speed up thinks a little.
Note: all changes where applied modifying the views or adding index by
hand. There is still room for improvement but it would need more in
depth refactoring, mainly adding specialized computed fields to
enable a better batching.
The first issue was using branch.staging_ids
branch.staging_ids.sorted(lambda s: s.staged_at, reverse=True)[:6]
The number of staging_ids is increasing and prefetching + sorting all
of them is slow.
The proposed solution is to replace it by a search, not ideal, a
specialized compute field may be a good idea, but this is a quick fix
that can be done editing a view.
branch.env['runbot_merge.stagings'].search([('target', '=', branch.id)],order='staged_at desc', limit=6)
Other changes are just index on critical columns.
Before changes, /runbot_merge page takes ~5s to load
After changes, /runbot_merge page takes ~1s to load
Small note: note 100% sure that runbot_merge.batch.target was useful
The loggers would only print the "tail" of the path, not including the
repo name, or the `/repos` prefix.
While this made logs shorter, it was not intentional and made
debugging some issues on endpoints harder than necessary as the calls
had to be adjusted mentally, which is completely unnecessary.
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).
If there are bump PRs anyway: the bump commits will cause the
forward-port of the staging to fail, so might as well clearly notify
everybody of the issue if there is a pending staging, and not waste
too much time waiting for a staging which can not succeed.
We could also cancel stagings when there's no bump PR, but it's not
clear that there's any reason to do so: if we didn't touch any master
branch, there's no reason for the staging to fail, or to otherwise
cancel it.
And obviously we can't have staged anything on the new branch so
there's nothing to cancel.
Part-Of: #718
I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!!!
The previous implementation of labels lookup was really not
intuitive (it was just a char field, and matched labels by equality
including the owner tag), and was also full of broken edge
cases (e.g. traceback if a label matched multiple PRs in the same repo
because people reuse branch names).
Tried messing about with contextual `display_name` and `name_search`
on PRs but the client goes wonky in that case, and there is no clean
autocomplete for non-relational fields.
So created a view which reifies labels, and that can be used as the
basis for our search. It doesn't have to be maintained by hand, can be
searched somewhat flexibly, we can add new view fields in the future
if desirable, and it seems to work fine providing a nice
understandable UX, with the reliability of using a normal Odoo model
the normal way.
Also fixed the handling of bump PRs, clearly clearing the entire field
before trying to update existing records (even with a link_to
inbetween) is not the web client's fancy, re-selecting the current
label would just empty the thing entirely.
So use a two-step process slightly closer to the release PRs instead:
- first update or delete the existing bump PRs
- then add the new ones
The second part is because bump PRs are somewhat less critical than
release, so it can be a bit more DWIM compared to the more deliberate
process of release PRs where first the list of repositories involved
has to be set up just so, then the PRs can be filled in each of them.
Fixes#697
In order to support partial freezing, we need the ability to remove
some of the release lines for the repos we don't want to
freeze (e.g. because they don't use per-version branches).
This subsequently means we need the ability to *create* new lines if
we fucked up and removed one we should not have. Alternatively the
freeze meat-bot could cancel the entire thing and redo the wizard but
that seems harsh and mean, so don't do that.
Fixes 0f3647b7c7 which specifically
mentioned partial freeze then proceeded to make them entirely
impossible anyway.
Part of #718
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
Was missing a logging message in the case where the current and sync'd
head are identical, which seems to occur from time to time but can
only be inferred (by seeing a sync event then nothing happening).
Add a logging warning (because it's a strange situation) in order to
explicitely note the issue.
Also make the sync logging messages more regular for clarity.
And add the delivery information (delivery id and user-agent) to event
log, so it's more possible to report issues to github.
After review, there doesn't seem to be a single integer field created
by the mergebot or fortwardbot modules for which a `group_operator`
makes sense, let alone the default of `sum`.
So just disable them all.
Fixes#674
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.
Fixes to the new bits which didn't really work:
- Fix borked view layout
- Add some help to the label fields
- Improve the resolution of label -> pr, and fix
- Also make the feature actually work for bump PRs
- Also make pr -> label work more reliably, now allows setting one PR
and getting the other PRs of the same batch (with the same label)
even without setting the label by hand
An autocomplete for the label has been considered but there is no
autocomplete field for char/selection fields, and it seems way too
much work for the utility:
- either create a brand new widget for 15.0 which will have to be
entirely rewritten in 16
- or create a transient model composed entirely of fake records to
provide an m2o to records which don't actually exist as label
bearers, which is also a lot of unnecessary work
NOTE: we want to support partial freezing (aka not freeze all the
branches because some of them have different release models
than others), so some project repos *not* having a release
PR is fine and normal, such a validation should not be added.
Fixes#664
In case where the last branch (before the branch being frozen) is
disabled, the forwardport inserter screws up, and fails to correctly
create the intermediate forwardports from the new branch.
Also when disabling a branch, if there are FW PRs which target that
branch and have not been forward-ported further, automatically
forward-port them as if the branch had been disabled when they were
created, this should limit data loss and confusion.
Also change the message set on PRs when disabling a branch: because of
user conflicts in test setup, the message about a branch being
disabled would close the PRs, which would then orphan the followup,
leading to unexpected / inconsistent behaviour.
Fixes#665
The `statuses` field of a staging is always "live" because it's a
computed non-stored field. This is an issue when a staging finishes in
whatever state, then someone gets new statuses sent on one of the head
commits, either by rebuilding (part of) the staging or by just using
the same commit for one of their branches.
This makes the reporting of the main dashboard confusing, as one might
look at a failed staging and see all the required statuses
successful. It also makes post-mortem analysis more complicated as the
logs have to be trawled for what the statuses used to be (and they
don't always tell).
Solve this by storing a snapshot of the statuses the first time a
staging moves away from `pending`, whether it's to success or failure.
Fixes#667
In the branch lists of stagings, the timestamps in the left column and
the labels in the data cells can not be selected, because they're
buttons and anyway bootstrap explicitly sets
.btn {
...
user-select: none;
}
This can be frustrating, as timestamps and labels are useful
information to cross-reference, the ability to copy them is
convenient.
Custom-set the reverse via our own CSS.
Fixes#668
Partially revert 0c882fc0df
This turns out to be more bane than boon, as it breaks forward-port
chains and confuses people (despite the message). Update notification
message and don't close the PR anymore.
While at it, disable any pending staging on the branch being deactivated.
Fixes#654
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...
15.0 (or 14.0) dropped some of the BS3 (?) compatibility stuff, which
the mergebot was (apparently) relying on. This lead to a visual
degradation as well as the frontend dropdown looking absolutely awful.
Fix that, on both style and templates.
15.0 (or 14.0) also dropped the bespoke responsive utility classes,
switch to bootstrap's.
Turns out I was running "15.0" except just on the runbot, enterprise
and community were still the 14.0 repos, so some of the changes were
missing.
While at it, bundle fixes for 3.10, as that's what Jammy needs, and
the mergebot/15.0 will be running on that.
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).
