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
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)
if rebased. Untouched commits (straight merge) remain unalterated, but
all rebased or squashed commits now get signoff and `Related` headers
added on top of the already previously added `part-of`.
Implement by generalising `_build_merge_message` to `_build_message`
and having `add_self_references` delegate to it, removes some of the
redundancy / differential handling.
Update the `part_of` helper to also add the S-O-B header to the PR,
although it currently does not reference the entire forward port
chain.
Fixes#876
Displays the entire batch set as a table, along both
repository (linked PRs) and branch (forward ports). Should provide a
much more complete overview.
Adds a copy of the dashboard as a raster render, to link from the PR:
as usual SVG is shit, content-based viewboxes are hell and having to
duplicate the entire CSS because `<img/>`-linked CSS can't run is
gross. And there's no payoff since the image is not interactible
anyway.
Performing manual ad-hoc table rendering via pillow is not
significantly worse, it works fine and it's possible to do *really*
good conditional request handling (hopefully) because I've basically
got all the information I need right here.
In fact it might make sense to upgrade the regular HTML page with
similar conditional request handling, at least for the last-update
bit if not the etag.
Fixes #771,fixes #770
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.
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.
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`)
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
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 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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
1cea247e6c tried to improve staging
checks to avoid staging PRs in the wrong state, however it had two
issues:
PR state
--------
The process would reset the PR's state to open, but unless the head
was being resync'd it wouldn't re-apply the statuses on the state,
leading to a PR with all-valid statuses, but a missing CI.
Message
-------
The message check didn't compose the PR message the same way PR
creation / update did (it did not trim the title and description
individually, only after concatenation), resulting in a
not-actually-existing divergence getting signaled in the case where
the PR title ends or the description starts with whitespace.
Expand relevant test, add a utility function to compose a PR message
and use it everywhere for coherence.
Also update the logging and reporting to show a diff of all the
updated items (hidden behind a `details` element).
Previously the mergebot would only sync the head commit, but synching
more is useful.
Also update the final sanity check on staging:
- as with check, update the message & target branch
- reset PR state and post a message when updating message instead of
doing so silently
Note: maybe only fail the staging if the message is updated *and*
relevant to staging (aka there's a merge method and it's not
`rebase`)?
Fixes#680
If commits have different authors (/ committers), the mergebot would
ask github to create a commit with an author (/ committer) of `None` /
`null`.
Apparently github really does not like that, and complains that
> nil is not an object
So remove the key entirely. Also fix the collision between `author`
and the `Co-Authored-By` list, which could lead to trying to set an
`author` of `[name, email]` instead of an object, which is also not
accepted by github.
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
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...
Test seems to fail from time to time with one of the PRs getting
lost. Tried to move code around trying to investigate, can't repro
anymore. Possibly a race condition because the `to_pr` call was
performed too early, before the webhook had run (and thus before the
PR object had been created on the odoo side).
By moving the `to_pr` calls to after the cron run, we really ensure
the webhooks will have run.
Also update `to_pr` to ensure exactly one PR was retrieved, as
currently nothing is checked so we might have gotten none (yet), which
should be noticed early and clearly. In theory this also guards
against multiple PRs, but PRs should be unique on (repo, number).
Currently deactivating a branch kinda leaves users in the dark, with
little way to know what has happened aside from inferring it from the
branch having disappeared from the main dashboard.
- surface the state of the branch in the PR dashboard (also surface
the target branch at all so users can see if their PR is targeted
as they expect as far as the mergebot is concerned)
- close & notify every PR to a branch being deactivated
- cancel any current staging to the branch (as a consequence of the
above)
Closes#632
The previous version of the code assumed `pr['body']` is always a
string, which is not correct, when the PR body is emptied the body
itself is removed (its value is `None`).
Add a case for this in the PR edition test, and avoid blowing up (or
adding empty newlines) when the PR body is empty. For PR creation this
issue was fixed in c2db5659d8 but
apparently I missed that the exact same issue occurs just a few lines
above.
Also turns out github does *not* send change information when the body
is updated from (or to?) `None`, so don't even bother with that, just
check every time if the overall message has been updated.
Fixes#629
Stop *staging* release PRs: they are normally fairly simple and should
not fail their staging outside of unreliable tests (or possibly a few
edge cases e.g. forgot one version change thing), however staging them
creates the possibility of a "version hole" on the release branch
which is undesirable.
Instead, immediately and unconditionally push the release commits onto
the newly created branches, if there are things which don't work they
can be fixed afterwards (and the process refined, maybe).
Also add the same feature for *bump* PRs, with the difference that the
bump PRs are not created / requested by default (they have to be opted
in individually).
For convenience, add a feature which automatically finds the PRs via
inputting the label (not really tested yet).
Closes#603
Because the searching of the PR occurs *right* after the PR was
created on the server, despite the additional operations (status,
approval) it's apparently possible for the lookup of the new PR to
occur about the same time the PR is being created, kinda, maybe?
On DS it triggers very reliably for every PR but the first. By moving
the retrieval after the repo timeout & we've run the crons, we near
guarantee the PRs are visible (it's possible for things to fail on
grounds of github reliability, but then they'd have failed *even more*
before).
- add a logging entry for PR updates
- change the generic log entry to log the sender (of the event) rather
than the PR author
- fix the post-facto PR loader to more systematically and reliably set
a `sender`
Old messages were quite inconsistent in their pinging of the PR author
and reviewer.
Reviewed messages (probably missed some but...) and try to more
consistently ping when the feedback requires some sort of action in
order to proceed.
Fixes#592
A few fixes and improvements after testing the feature:
- ensure the provisioned users are created as internal (not portal)
- assume oauth is installed and just crash if it's not
- handle a user not having an email (ignore)
- return value from json handler, otherwise JsonRequest sends no
payload which is *weird*
Stagings would be cancelled automatically if the PR's commits were
updated, but not if the target (base) was changed, even though that
has a drastic impact on staging.
Add hooks to unstage PRs if their base is updated, or if their message
is updated and relevant to staging (merge or rebase-merge methods).
Fixes#604
When a staging's fast-forward (to the target branch) fails, the
mergebot would provide no useful information on the staging or the
dashboard.
This is because the reason was set to the HTTP status, which in case
of a fast-forward error is just "422 client error: unprocessable
entity".
Improve this by trying to parse github's response in that case, and
using the JSON error message as failure reason. This provides more
useful failure information like "update is not a fast forward",
"reference does not exist", or a branch protection failure.
Closes#591
New accounts endpoint such that the SSO can push new pre-configured
users / employees directly. This lowers maintenance burden.
Also remove one of the source partners from the merge test, as
ordering seems wonky for unclear reasons leading to random failures of
that test.
On #509, the rebasing process was changed to forcefully update the
commit date of the commits, in order to force trigger builds.
However when squashing was re-enabled for #539 for some fool reason it
implemented its own bespoke rebasing (despite that not actually saving
any API call that I can see), meaning it did *not* update the commit
date. As such, an old commit being squashed would not get picked up by
the runbot, which is what happened to odoo/documentation#1226 (which
ultimately had to be hand-rebased after some confusion as to why it
did not work).
Update `_stage_squash` to go through `rebase` the normal way, also
update `rebase` to pop the commit date entirely instead of setting it
manually, and update the squashing test to check that the commit date
gets properly updated.
Fixes#579, closes#582
Currently limited to release/freeze PRs: it can be difficult to be
sure the right PR was selected then, and a mistake there seems more
impactful than in the PRs being waited for?
Note: adds a test to make sure I don't break the check that all
release PRs must have the same label (be linked). This was
already safe, and in a way this PR adds convenience but not
really safety, but better sure than sorry.
- add flag to not select repos for freezing
- allow removing more repositories from the wizard
- when performing the freeze, only create branches for the selected
repos
The freeze wizard was implemented using a single action to open and
validate the dialog.
This was a mistake, as it means if there are no errors left (e.g. all
the PRs being waited for are now validated) trying to view the freeze
wizard will immediately validate it and commit the freeze, which is
unexpected, surprising, and unsafe e.g.
- open wizard
- add freeze prs
- add a required pr or two
- close and go do something else
- be told that more PRs need to be waited for
- reopen wizard
- oops freeze is done
So split the "open action" part of `action_freeze` into opening the
action and performing the freeze. The "freeze" / "view freeze" button
on the project only activates the latter, and the actual freeze
operation is only triggered from the wizard's "Freeze" button.
Part of #559.
Provides a less manual interface for creating the freeze:
* takes the name of the branch to create
* takes any number of PRs which must be part of the freeze
* takes PRs representing the HEADs of the new branches
Then essentially takes care of the test.
Implementation of the actual wizard is not trivial but fairly
straightforward and linear, biggest issue is not being able to
`project_id.branch_ids[1]` to get the new branch, not sure why but it
seems to ignore the ordering, clearing the cache doens't fix it.
When creating the branches, add a sleep after each one for secondary
rate limiting purposes. Same when deleting branches.
Also the forwardbot has been updated to disable the forwardport cron
while a freeze is ongoing, this simplifies the freezing process.
Note: after recommendation of @aab-odoo, tried using `_applyChanges`
in `_checkState` but it simply did not work: the two relational fields
got completely frozen and were impossible to update, which is less
than ideal. Oh well, hopefully it works well enough like this for now.
To prep for the addition of the freeze wizard:
* move projects out of `pull_requests.py`
* then realize half the methods there have no relation to projects and
move them to more relevant places in `pull_requests.py`
* update corresponding crons (and tests using those crons) as the
methods have changed model, and the cron definitions thus need to be
updated
* split update to labels out of sending feedback comments while at it:
labels are not used much during tests so their manipulation can be
avoided; and labels are not as urgent as feedback so the crons can
be quite a bit slower
* move the project view out of `mergebot.xml` as well
When a commit is lacking the purpose (?) tag e.g. `[FIX]`, `[IMP]`,
..., a normal commit message of the form `<module>: <info>` marches
the looks of a git pseudo-header.
This results in a commit rewrite rejiggering the entire thing and
breaking the message by moving the title to the pseudo-headers and
mis-promoting either the `closes` line of body content to "title",
resulting in a really crappy commit message
e.g. odoo/odoo@d4aa9ad031.
Update the commit rewriting procedure to specifically skip the title
line, and re-inject it without processing in the output.
Fixes#540
Re-introduce a "squash" mode solely for the purpose of fixing up
commit messages without having to go and edit them: for now "squash"
only works for single-commit PRs, acts as a normal
integration (`rebase-ff`) *but* replaces the message of the commit
itself by that of the PR, similar to the `merge` modes.
This means maintainers can update commit messages to standards by
editing the PR description (though this is obviously sensible to
edition races with the original author).
Fixes#539
If a reviewer doesn't have an email set, the Signed-Off-By is an
`@users.noreply.github.com` address which just looks weird in the
final result.
Initially the thinking was that emails would be required for users to
*be* reviewers or self-reviewers, but since those are now o2ms / m2ms
it's a bit of a pain in the ass.
Instead, provide an action to easily try and fetch the public email of
a user from github.
Fixes#531
Since we have the model fields loaded up, we can just check into that
and assume anything that's not a field is a method.
That avoids having to go through `_call`, making things way less awkward.
After internal discussions it was concluded that this didn't extend
much more trust than allowing authors to accept their single-PR
commits without additional supervisions, and it would avoid some
inconveniences and PR-blocking.
Fixes#69 (nice)
Because sometimes github updates are missed (usually because github
never triggers it), it's possible for the mergebot's view of a PR
description to be incorrect. In that case, the PR may get merged with
the wrong merge message entirely, through no fault of the user.
Since we already fetch the PR info when staging it, there's very
little overhead to checking that the PR message we store is correct
then, and update it if it's not. This means the forward-port's
description should also be correct.
While at it, clean the forward port PR's creation a bit:
- there should always be a message since the title is required on
PRs (only the body can be missing), therefore no need to check that
- as we're adding a bunch of pseudo-headers, there always is a body,
no need for the condition
- inline the `pr_data` and `URL`: they were extracted for the support
of draft PRs, since that's been removed it's now unnecessary
Fixes#530
The page of PRs in "error" is currently kinda broken: it does not show
any feedback aside from the PR being in error which is not very
useful.
The intent was always to show an explanation, but when adding the page
I just deref'd `staging_id` which always fails though in two different
ways:
* when the PR can not be staged at all (because of a conflict) there
is no staging at all with a reason to show, so there should be
a fallback that the PR could not even be staged
* `staging_id` is a related field which deref's to the staging_ids
of the first *active* batch, except when a staging completes
(successfully or not) both staging and batch are disabled.
Plus the first batch will be the one for the first staging so if the
PR is retried and fails again the wrong reason may be displayed.
So update the section to show what we want: the reason of the
staging of the *last* batch attached to the PR.
NOTE: there's one failure mode remaining, namely if a staging fails
then on retry the PR conflicts with the new state of the
repository (so it can't be staged at all), the "reason" will
remain that of the staging. This could be mitigated by attaching
a "nonsense" batch on failure to stage (similar to the
forwardport stuff), that batch would have no staging, therefore
no staging reason, therefore fallback.
Closes#525
On staging failure, the 'bot would point to the first error or failure
status it found on the commit. This turns out not to be correct as
we (now) have various statuses which are optional, and may fail
without blocking stagings (either because they're solely informational
or because they're blocking & overridable on PRs).
Fix this so the 'bot points to the first *required* failure.
Fixes#517
* Remove the forwardport creating PRs in draft, that was mostly to
avoid codeowners triggering but we've removed the github one and
hand-rolled it, so not a concern anymore.
* Prevent merging `draft` PRs, the mergebot rejects approval on draft
PRs and insults people.
TBD (maybe): try to create *conflicting* forward-port PRs in draft so
it's clearer they need to be *fixed*? Issue of not being able to do
that on all private repositories remains so~~
Fixes#500
"Uniquifier" commits were introduced to ensure branches of a staging
on which nothing had been staged would still be rebuilt properly.
This means technically the branches on which something had been
staged never *needed* a uniquifier, strictly speaking. And those lead
to extra building, because once the actually staged PRs get pushed
from staging to their final destination it's an unknown commit to the
runbot, which needs to rebuild it instead of being able to just use
the staging it already has.
Thus only add the uniquifier where it *might* be necessary:
technically the runbot should not manage this use case much better,
however there are still issues like an ancillary build working with
the same branch tip (e.g. the "current master") and sending a failure
result which would fail the entire staging. The uniquifier guards
against this issue.
Also update rebase semantics to always update the *commit date* of the
rebased commits: this ensures the tip commit is always "recent" in the
case of a rebase-ff (which is common as that's what single-commit PRs
do), as the runbot may skip commits it considers "old".
Also update some of the utility methods around repos / commits to be
simpler, and avoid assuming the result is JSON-decodable (sometimes it
is not).
Also update the handling of commit statuses using postgres' ON
CONFLICT and jsonb support, hopefully this improves (or even fixes)
the serialization errors. Should be compatible with 9.5 onwards which
is *ancient* at this point.
Fixes#509
Although it's possible to find what PR a commit was part of with a bit
of `git log` magic (e.g. `--ancestry-path COMMIT.. --reverse`) it's
not the most convenient, and many people don't know about it, leading
them to various debatable decisions to try and mitigate the issue,
such as tagging every commit in a PR with the PR's identity, which
then leads github to spam the PR itself with pingbacks from its own
commits. Which is great.
Add this information to the commits when rebasing them (and *only*
when rebasing them), using a `Part-of:` pseudo-header.
Fixes#482
If a PR is closed on github and unknown by the mergebot, when fetched
it should be properly sync'd as "closed" in the backend, otherwise the
PR can get in a weird state and cause issues.
Also move the "I fetched the thing" comment before the actual creation
of the PR for workflow clarity, otherwise the reader has the
impression that the 'bot knew about the PR then fetched it anyway.
And improve savepoint management around the fetching: savepoints
should be released in all cases.
Closes#488.
If two PRs have the same label *in different projects entirely*, the
mergebot should not consider them to be linked, but it did as shown by
the warning message on odoo-dev/odoo#905 (two PRs created from the
same branch in different projects were seen as linked by the status
checker).
3b417b16a1 fixed the actual staging
selection, it's only the warning which did not properly segregate PRs.
Only group PRs which target the same branch (therefore are within the
same project).
Fixes#487
Previously, a PR's status page would only show the linked / related
PRs when `open`.
Since the relations between PRs remains useful, also make this
information available during staging and after merging.
Fixes#463
If a PR got merged to master (or whatever the current development
branch is), there's no easy way to know what maintenance branch it
ended up landing in, except by asking git which branches contain the
commit (which can be rather slow).
Add a special case on merge which labels the PR with a pseudo-branch
patterned after the second-to-last branch of the project:
* if the branch ends with a number, increment the number by one
e.g. 2.0 -> 2.1, 5 -> 5.1
* otherwise, just prefix with `post-` e.g. "maint" ->
"post-maint" (that one doesn't sound very helpful, but I guess it's
nice for the weirdoes who call their branches "natty narwhal" and
shit)
Fixes#450
5cf3617eef intended to create merge
messages with only the content of PR descriptions before the first
thematic break. However this processing was incorrectly applied
to all messages being processed (meaning rebased / squashed commit
messages as well).
Properly apply thematic break processing to only commit messages
created from PR descriptions.
The mergebot has a feature to ping users when an approved PR or
forward-port suffers from a CI failure, as those PRs might be somewhat
unattended (so the author needs to be warned explicitly).
Because the runbot can send the same failure information multiple
times, the mergebot also has a *deduplication* feature, however this
deduplication feature was too weak to handle the case where the PR has
2+ failures e.g. ci and linting as it only stores the last-seen
failure, and there would be two different failures here.
Worse, because the validation step looks at all required statuses, in
that case it would send a failure ping message for each failed
status *on each inbound status*: first it'd notify about the ci
failure and store that, then it'd see the linting failure, check
against the previous (ci), consider it a new failure, notify, and
store that. Rinse and repeat every time runbot sends a ci *or* lint
failure, leading to a lot of dumb and useless spam.
Fix by storing the entire current failure state (a map of context:
status) instead of just the last-seen status data.
Note: includes a backwards-compatibility shim where we just convert a
stored status into a full `{context: status}` map. This uses the
"current context" because we don't have the original, but if it was a
different context it's not going to match anyway (the target_url
should be different) and if it was the same context then there's a
chance we skip sending a redundant notification.
Fixes#435
Before this change, a CI override would have to be replicated on most
/ all forward-ports of the base PR. This was intentional to see how it
would shake out, the answer being that it's rather annoying.
Also add a `statuses_full` computed field on PRs for the aggregate
status: the existing `statuses` field is just a copy of the commit
statuses which I didn't remember I kept free of the overrides so the
commit statuses could be displayed "as-is" in the backend (the
overrides are displayed separately). And while at it fix the PR
dashboard to use that new field: that was basically the intention but
then I went on to use the "wrong" field hence #433.
Mebbe the UI part should be displayed using a computed M2M (?)
as a table or as tags instead? This m2m could indicate whether the
status is an override or an "intrinsic" status.
Also removed some dead code:
* leftover from the removed tagging feature (removed the tag
manipulation but forgot some of the setup / computations)
* unused local variables
* an empty skipped test case
Fixes#439.
Fixes#433.
Currently when creating *merges* the commit message is the
concatenation of the PR title and the PR body.
However it can be convenient to include description test which would
not be included in the commit message e.g. PR template
stuff. "Thematic breaks" seem like a good way to do this: the commit
message will only include the content preceding the first thematic
break, everything else is ignored (except headings which are not
ignored, double negations FTW).
Might be that that's a bit excessive and we should only ignore what
follows the *last* thematic break. Or that there needs to be a more
specific marker. We'll see.
Fixes#443.
Because the commands were collected in a `dict[Command, Params]` a
command could only be present once *in the mergebot* (the forwardbot
already collected commands in a list).
* Update mergebot commands parser to collect commands in a list.
* Improve override to allow a comma-separated list of CIs to override.
* Simplify the parsing of delegate to generate one delegate command
per target (slightly less efficient if multiple logins are provided
but that is likely extremely rare).
Fixes#445
Because github materialises every labels change in the
timeline (interspersed with comments), the increasing labels churn
contributes to PRs being difficult to read and review.
This change removes the update of labels on PRs, instead the mergebot
will automatically send a comment to created PRs serving as a
notification that the PR was noticed & providing a link to the
mergebot's dashboard for that PR where users should be able to see the
PR state in detail in case they wonder what's what.
Lots of tests had to be edited to:
- remove any check on the labels of the PR
- add checks on the PR dashboard (to ensure that they're at least on
the correct "view")
- add a helper to handle the comment now added to every PR by the 'bot
- since that helper is needed by both mergebot and forwardbot, the
utils modules were unified and moved out of the odoo modules
Probably relevant note: no test was added for the dashboard
ACL, though since I had to explicitly unset the group on the repo used
for tests for things to work it looks to me like it at least excludes
people just fine.
Fixes#419
Convert overridable CI to an m2m from partners, it's significantly
more convenient to manipulate as multiple users can (and likely will)
have access to the same overrides, add a name_search so the override
is easy to find from a partner, and provide a view for the
overrides (with partners as tags).
Also make the repository optional on CI overrides.
Fixes#420
When retrieving unknown PRs, the process would apply all comments,
thereby applying eventual r+ without taking in account their
relationship to a force push. This means it was possible for a
mergebot-unknown PR to be r+'d, updated, retargeted, and the mergetbot
would consider it good to go.
The possible damage would be somewhat limited but still, not great.
Sadly Github simply doesn't provide access to the entire event stream
of the PR, so there is no way to even know whether the PR was updated,
let alone when in relation to comments. Therefore just resync the PR
after having applied comments: we still want to apply the merge method
& al, we just want to reset back to un-approved.
An other minor fix (for something we never actually hit but could):
reviews are treated more or less as comments, but separate at github's
level. The job would apply all comments then all reviews, so the
relative order of comments and reviews would be wrong.
Combine and order comments and reviews so they are applied
in (hopefully) the correct order of their creation / submission.
Closes#416
Historically PRs to disabled branches were treated like PRs to
un-managed branches: ignored.
However because they cay *already exist* when the branch is disabled,
the effects can be subtly different, and problematically so
e.g. ignoring all PR events on PRs targeting disabled branches means
we can't close them anymore, which is less than great.
So don't ignore events on PRs to disabled branches (creation, sync,
closing, and reopening) but also send feedback on PRs to disabled or
un-managed branches to indicate that they're not merge-able.
Fixes#410
If we can't stage a PR, rather than immediately put them in error wait
until they were the first we tried staging, otherwise they might have
been conflicting with the previous batch which ultimately won't be
merged for other reason and they would have worked as part of the next
batch.
Note: this commit will lead to false negatives because it's
batch-based rather than repo-based, so if the first batch only affects
repo A and the second batch only affects repo B, if the second batch
triggers a merge error it should be rejected immediately (as it's
applied on a "pristine" repo B) but this change will just bump it to
the next staging.
fixes#209
On per-repo status configurations, convert the "branch_ids" filter to
a domain on branches. Since the selection is generally
binary (statuses either apply to the master branch or apply to
non-master branch) this avoids error-prone missed updates where we
forget to enable statuses pretty much every time we fork off a new
branch.
Fixes#404
Normally opening a PR against a disabled branch is like opening a PR
against a branch which is not configured at all: the PR id ignored
entirely.
However if the PR already exists then the state of the branch isn't
normally checked when interacting with the branch, and it is possible
to trigger its staging, at which point the staging itself will crash:
on a project the branches are `active_test=False` so they're all
visible in the form, but when repos go search()-ing for the branch
they won't find it and will blow up.
Solution: only try staging on branches which are active. Fixes
odoo/runbot#408. Also do the same for checking stagings.
And while at it, fix#409 by wrapping each checking or staging into a
try/except and a savepoint. This way if a staging blows up it should
move on to the next branch instead of getting stuck.
The "blocked" computation would not take branch targets in account, so
PRs with the same label targeting *different branches* (possible if
somewhat rare due to our naming conventions) could block one another,
despite really being unrelated.
Also fix up some messages:
* if a PR is blocked due to having no merge method, it should say
that, not "has no merge" (no merge what?)
* format un-managed branches as `$repo:$branch` in logging messages,
`$repo#$thing` is for issues / PRs and `$branch` alone can be very
unhelpful
Closes#407
This is a regression due to the implementation details of
odoo/runbot#376: previously _parse_command would only yield the
commands it had specifically recognised (from a whitelist).
22e18e752b simplified the implementation
and (for convenience when adding new commands) now passes through any
command to the executor instead of skipping the unknown one.
But I forgot to update the executor to ignore unknown commands, so it
treats them as *failed* (since the success flag doesn't get set) and
assumes it's an ACL issue, so notifies the user that they can't do the
thing they never really asked for.
Add an end-case which skips the feedback bit for unrecognized
commands, which restores the old behavior.
Fixes#390
Currently it can be difficult to know why the mergebot refuses to
merge a PR (not that people care, they generally just keep sending new
commands without checking what the 'bot is telling them, oh well...).
Anyway knowing the CI state is the most complicated bit because the CI
tag only provides a global pass/fail for statuses but not a view of
specific statuses, and sometimes either the runbot or github fails to
notify the mergebot, leading to inconsistent internal states & shit.
By adding a tag per status context per PR, we can more clearly
indicate what's what.
Fixes#389
Apparently a long-running issue but not really a concern before the
new mergebot started sending a lot more statuses: stagings would show
a list of all statuses they received, including optional / irrelevant
statuses.
Get a list of required statuses and only show that on the staging
dropdowns.
Closes#387
Adds an `override` mergebot command. The ability to override is set on
an individual per-context per-repository basis, similar to but
independent from review rights. That is, a given individual may be
able to override the status X on repository A and unable to do so on
repository B.
Overrides are stored in the same format as regular statuses, but
independent from them in order to persist them across builds.
Only PR statuses can be overridden, statuses which are overridable on
PRs would simply not be required on stagings.
An alternative to implementing this feature in the mergebot would be
to add it to individual status-generating tools on a per-need
basis.
Pros of that alternative:
* display the correct status on PRs, currently the PR will be failing
status-wise (on github) but correct as far as the mergebot is
concerned
* remove complexity from the mergebot
Cons of that alternative:
* each status-generating tool would have to implement some sort of ACL
system
* each status-generating tool would have to receive & parse PR
comments
* each status-generating tool would have to maintain per-pr state in
order to track overrides
Some sort of helper library / framework ought make that rather easy
though. It could also be linked into the central provisioning system
thing.
Closes#376
