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
Requirement for odoo/runbot#376: one can't expect there being someone
to override CI checks on stagings, so it only makes sense for checks
on PRs, which in turns requires that there could be checks only
required on PRs.
Could also be useful for features like incremental linting /
formatting, we may want to apply checks on PRs which filter on the
lines modified, but not require the entire software be reformatted at
once.
Having the required statuses be a mere list of contexts has become a
bit too limiting for our needs as it doesn't allow e.g. adding new
required statuses on only some branches of a repository (e.g. only
master), nor does it allow putting checks on only branches, or only
stagings, which would be useful for overridable checks and the like,
or for checks which only make sense linked to a specific revision
range (e.g. "incremental" linting which would only check whatever's
been modified in a PR).
Split the required statuses into a separate set of objects, any of
which can be separately marked as applying only to some branches (no
branch = all branches).
Fixes#382
While the head gets updated (properly), the squash flag did not which
could lead to odd results. Since a PR can only be reopened if it was
regular-pushed to (not after a force push) there are two scenarios:
* the PR updated to have 0 commits, closed, pushed to with one commit
then reopened, after reopening the PR would be marked as !squash and
would ask for a merge method (that's what happened with
odoo/odoo#51763)
* the PR has a single commit, is closed, pushed to then reopened,
after reopening the PR would still be marked a squash and potentially
straight rebased without asking for a merge method
Nothing would break per-se but both scenarios are undesirable.
Close#373
The logic of the partner merge wizard is to collect all relevant data
from source partners, write them to a destination partner, then remove
the sources.
This... doesn't work when the field in question has a UNIQUE
constraint (like github_login), because it's going to copy the value
from a source onto a dest which will blow the constraint, and so the
copy fails. In that case the user first has to *move over* the unique
field's value then they can use the wizard.
Just fix for the github login: take all sources, remove (and store)
their github logins, then write the login onto the dst.
An alternative would have been to *defer* the constraint, however:
* it only works on unique constraints, not unique indexes
* it requires the constraint to be declared DEFERRABLE
Closes#301
approving a PR which failed CI should trigger a feedback message since
6cb58a322d (#158), the code has not been
removed and the tests still pass.
However fwbot r+ would go through its own process for r+ which would
explain why that feedback is sometimes gone / lost (cf #327 and #336).
* make fwbot r+ delegate to mergebot r+
* add dedicated logging for this operation to better analyze
post-mortem
* automatically ping the reviewer to specifically tell them they're idiots
* move the feedback item out of the state change bit, send it even if
it's a useless r+ (because it's already r+'d)
* add a test for forward-ports
Closes#327, closes#336
Rather than try to fix up various bits where we search & all and
wonder what index we should be using, make the column a CIText.
For mergebot the main use case would be properly handling
delegate=XXX: currently if XXX is not a case-sensitive match we're
going to create a new partner with the new github login and
give *them* delegation, and the intended target of the delegation
isn't going to work correctly.
Also try to install the citext extension if it's not in the database,
and run the database-creation process with `check=True` so if that
fails we properly bubble up the error and don't try to run tests on a
corrupted / broken DB.
Fixes#318
As the odds of having more projects or more repos with different
requirements in the same project, the need to have different sets of
reviewers for different repositories increases.
As a result, rather than be trivial boolean flags the review info
should probably depend on the user / partner and the repo. Turns out
the permission checks had already been extracted into their own
function so most of the mess comes from testing utilities which went
and configured their review rights as needed.
Incidentally it might be that the test suite could just use something
like a sequence of commoditized accounts which get configured as
needed and not even looked at unless they're used.
Before this change, `r-` on a pr[p=0] does essentially nothing. At
most it will unstage if the PR had been (somewhat unnecessarily) r+'d
in the past but then the PR will get re-staged immediately.
To avoid this odd behaviour, if r- is sent to a p=0 PR not only is
the PR unreviewed (if it was reviewed) it always gets unstaged, and
its priority gets reset to 1 (high priority but doesn't bypass CI and
review). Also send a comment on that subject so followers of the pr
are notified.
Fixes#313
The staging cron was already essentially split between "check if one
of the stagings is successful (and merge it)" and "check if we should
create a staging" as these were two separate loops in the cron.
But it might be useful to disable these two operations separately
e.g. we might want to stop the creation of new staging but let the
existing stagings complete.
The actual splitting is easy but it turns out a bunch of tests were
"optimised" to only run the merge cron. Most of them didn't blow up
but it seems more prudent to fix them all.
fixesodoo/runbot#310
The PR creation had been fixed to always validate even without a
commit found (in case there was no need for a commit), but the update
of a PR in such a situation was not tested, and thus naturally did not
work because why would it work if it wasn't tested?
Also remove the conditional skip on updating a PR to a new head.
The test was checking things would work properly with
required_statuses being an empty string, because I'd also forgotten an
empty field becomes stored as `False` in the database, so trying
things out live neither the PRs nor the staging would work as their
assumption that they could straight split the required_statuses would
always fail.
Update the test to better match expectations, and hopefully this is
the end of that saga.
PRs transitioning to 'ready' had been checked and tested but turns out
I had completely forgotten to test that stagings would validate
properly therefore of course they didn't.
The issue here was I'd forgotten `''.split(',')` returns `['']` rather
than `[]`, so on an empty required_statuses the staging validator
would keep looking for a status matching the context `''` and would
never find it, keeping the staging pending until timeout. So most
likely the problem could have been resolved by just adding a condition
to
[r.strip() for r in repomap[c.sha].required_statuses.split(',')]
but I'd already done all the rest of the reorganisation by that point,
test pass and I think it's a somewhat better logic. Therefore I'll go
with that for now.
* properly handle empty required_statuses during staging validation
* remove the final postcondition, if we're missing commits which don't
require any statuse we should not care
* expand test to include up to merging PRs
* automatically create dummy commits when creating stagings, that way
the relevant commits are in the database (can't hurt)
PS: an other alternative would have been to filter out or skip ahead
on commits which don't require any statuses aka cmap &
required_statuse / cmap would not even have that entry
The pytest suite had been partially unified between mergebot and
forwardport but because of session-scoped modules it could not run
across those.
Make the db cache lazy and able to cache multiple databases, and move
the "current required module" to function scoped, this way things
should (and seem to) work properly on runs involving mergebot & fwbot.
Next step: xdist! (need to randomise repo names for that, probably).
Discussing #238 with @odony, the main concern was the difficulty of
understanding if things merged in one repo were related to things
merged in an other repo: currently, knowing this requires going to the
merged PR, getting its label, and checking the PRs with the same HEAD
in the other repository to see if there's a correlation (e.g. PRs
merged around the same time).
The current structure of the mergebot makes it reasonably easy to add
the other PRs of the batch in the pseudo-headers, such that we get
links to all "related" PRs in the head commit (and links back from the
commits which is probably less useful but...)
Fixes#238
1. if we try to stage a PR and realize we'd stored / checked the wrong
head, cancel the staging and notify the PR
2. provide a command to forcefully update pr heads (or at least check
that a PR's head is up to date)
Closes#241
It should have already been working, added an additional check for
update-then-retarget just in case but that worked out of the box. So
not sure why odoo/odoo#40106 failed.
Closes#256
* add a sorted method on fake models
* fix recordset equality to ignore ids order
* when creating commits on a ref, add a param to only *update* the ref
(forcefully): when simulating a force-push we don't want to *create*
a ref as that might silently be done in the wrong repository entirely
* fix pytest.skip call at the module level, not sure where it came
from and why I missed it until now
The fw-bot testing API should improve the perfs of mergebot tests
somewhat (less waiting around for instance).
The code has been updated to the bare minimum (context-managing repos,
change to PRs and replacing rolenames by explicit token provisions)
but extra facilities were used to avoid changing *everything*
e.g. make_commit (singular), automatic generation of PR refs, ...
The tests should eventually be updated to remove these.
Also remove the local fake / mock. Being so much faster is a huge
draw, but I don't really want to spend more time updating it,
especially when fwbot doesn't get to take advantage. A local /
lightweight fake github (as an external service over http) might
eventually be a good idea though, and more applicable (including to
third-parties).
If the CI is greatly backed up (either insufficient capacity or jobs
spike) a timeout which is normally perfectly fine might be
insufficient e.g. given a 2h timeout, if a job normally takes 80mn but
the staging's job starts 40mn after the staging was actually created
we're sunk. And cancelling the staging once the job has finally gotten
started is not going to improve load on the CI, it just wastes a CI
slot.
Therefore assume a `pending` event denotes the actual start of the job
on the CI, and reset the timeout to start from that moment so
ci_timeout is the timeout of the CI job itself, not of the staging
having been created.
Closes#202
Converge the pytest setups of runbot_merge and forwardport a bit
more (the goal is obviously to eventually share the infrastructure so
they run the same way).
* Cherrypicking is handrolled because there seems to be no easy way to
programmatically edit commit messages during the cherrypicking
sequence: `-n` basically squashes all commits and `-e` invokes a
subprocess. `-e` with `VISUAL=false` kinda sorta works (in that it
interrupts the process before each commit), however there doesn't
seem to be clean status codes so it's difficult to know if the
cherrypick failed or if it's just waiting for a commit of this step.
Instead, cherrypick commits individually then edit / rewrite their
commit messages:
* add a reference to the original commit
* convert signed-off-by to something else as the original commit was
signed off but not necessarily this one
* Can't assign users when creating PRs: only repository collaborators
or people who commented on the issue / PR (which we're in the
process of creating) can be assigned.
PR authors are as likely to be collaborators as not, and we can have
non-collaborator reviewers. So pinging via a regular comment seems
less fraught as a way to notify users.
Prepares for more complex edition operations on the forwardbot side
* split out the pseudo-headers from the message body
* don't separate the co-authored-by headers from the others, seems
unnecessary, we just need to ensure they're at the end so github
doesn't miss them (/it)
A deactivated branch is generally treated as unmanaged which is mostly
correct except for the case of retargeting an existing PR.
When a branch is deactivated the corresponding PRs are not removed, so
it's possible to have live PRs associated with ~unmanamaged
branches. When retargeting those PRs to active branches, the mergebot
would assume there was no existing PR and would create a duplicate,
then either get completely lost (before
a84595ea04) or blow up (after the same).
Properly search amongst deactivated branches for retargeting sources
so we update the relevant PR instead of trying to create duplicates.
Fixes#169
* extract method to create a PR object from a github result (from the
PR endpoint)
* move some of the remote's fixtures to a global conftest (so they can
be reused in the forwardbot)
Before this change mergebot assumes github's tags are in sync with its
"previous" state, but because tags update was highly non-atomic (one
call per removal plus one for additions) and state can further change
between a failure and an update retry (especially as the labels endpoint
fails *a lot*), it's possible for set tags (in github) to be completely
desync'd from the mergebot state, leading to very misleading on-pr
indications.
This first fetches the current tagstate from github (to not lose non-
mergebot tags) then (hopefully atomically) resets all tags tags based on
the current mergebot state. This should avoid desyncs, and eventually
resync PRs (if they change state).
Fixes#170
On a PR being updated, closed or unreviewed, if it is part of an
active staging that staging would get cancelled (yay). However, if the
PR was part of a pending *split*, then the split would *not* get
cancelled / updated (to remove the PR from it), and the PR could go on
to get staged as if everything were right in the world which is an
issue.
It doesn't look like it actually happened (at least I got no echo of
it), but it almost did at least once.
fixes#160
Also add test for it & feedback of an approved PR failing CI, and fix
corner case with it (might not send a warning immediately on CI failure
depending on status requirement ordering).
Fixes#158
* when rebasing, store a map of rebased to source, that way it'll be
possible to link cherry-picked forward ports to the originally
integrated commit rather than just the one from the PR (which was
likely not itself integrated as the straight merge mode is somewhat
rare: as of 5600 PRs merged so far only 100 were straight merged)
* while at it, store the "merge head" of the PR (whether squashed,
merged or rebased) and put *that* in the commit message
fixes#161
Sometimes people add co-authored-by lines in the middle of their
message, where github ignores them.
Since we previously added properly handling existing (correct) C-A-B
lines in the case where we're adding fixes and signed-off-by, we might
as well fix-up existing but mispalced co-authored-by lines.
Fixes#107
Previously, creating a PR would validate the head (in case it had
already passed CI) but reopening it would not, which is inconvenient
as the CI would not automatically run on a reopened PR.
Update both the state and the head of the PR on reopen to force a
revalidation, that way if the head has already passed CI the PR will
be reopened validated and there won't be an unclear need to perform an
explicit CI run.
Fixes#119
Use the proper / actual "is there any stageable PR" query to check if
a PR is blocked as well, that way they shoudn't be diverging all the
time even if it might make PR.blocked a bit more expensive.
fixes#111
Will comment any time a statuses update folds to a CI failure on a
reviewed pull request. Might be somewhat spammy, we'll see.
No notification if the PR is not reviewed yet.
fixes#87
Before this, impacting a commit's statuses on the relevant PR or
staging would be performed immediatly / inline with its
consumption. This, however, is problematic if we want to implement
additional processing like #87 (and possibly though probably not #52):
webhook handlers should be kept short and fast, feeding back into
github would not be acceptable.
- flag commits as needing processing instead of processing them
immediately, this uses a partial index as it looks like the
recommended / proper way to index a boolean column in which one of
the values is searched much more than the other (todo: eventually
check if that actually does anythnig)
- add a new cron for commits processing
- alter tests so they use this new cron (mostly by migrating them to
`run_crons` though not solely as some still need more detailed
management to properly check intermediate steps)
Fix an issue with closing a staged PR while at it (the "merging" tag
would potentially never be removed).
If a PR gets sync'd to a known-valid commit, it should be marked as
valid rather than get in this weird state where it's merely open but
github knows it passes CI.
Fixes#72
The choice to keep sync'd PRs in error means it's possible to update
the code and re-run the PR directly without it going through review &
CI again, which is a bit odd. Remove the special case and always reset
a sync'd PR to opened for clarity and simplicity.
closes#71closes#83
In remote tests, if the deletion of a test repository fails (because
gh glitch) or the repo creation succeeded but reported a failure (for
some reason) the entire run is hosed because every test trying to
create a similarly named repository will explode.
Alter repomaker to just try to delete the repo, unless --no-delete
mode in which case just skip any further test trying to use the same
repository (not deleting the repo is the entire point of --no-delete,
as its purpose is the ability to do post-mortem debugging on
repository state).
closes#99
Github is subject to a fair amount of transient failures, which are
currently ill-logged: an exception is raised and the caller /
responsible might eventually log something, but it's not really
formalised and centralised, and is thus inconvenient to try and
post-mortem issues with github's support.
Change this such that *almost* all github API calls get extensively
logged (status, reason, all headers, body) on failure.
Also automatically sets debug logging for odoo in local tests, and
alter the fake response constructor thing so it doesn't set a json
mimetype when the body is not valid json.
Closes#98
When a user changes the merge method via github messages, no feedback is
sent. This could lead to strange behavior, for example when a user try
to joke with the mergebot like this:
> robodoo are you goin ti merge my PR rogntudju !
This sets the merge method to "merge" and the user is not aware of it.
If a transient github failure makes the integration fail but also
makes the following reset fail the entire staging process would be
cancelled (and operations so far rollbacked) except for the failure
comment which would be effected, as in odoo/odoo#26380.
By pushing the comment to the feedback queue, if the reset fails the
comment is rollbacked and "unqueued".
Closed tagging was broken since the raw-sql alterations of the close
hook: because it's raw SQL, the write() method doesn't get invoked
anymore and as a result the tagging feedback record is not created,
and never executed.
Add a test to check for the PR's proper tagging, and fix this issue by
explicitly creating a tagging record.
Closes#49
Hopefully this finally fixes the double commenting
issue (e.g. odoo/odoo#28160). This seems (according to reading the
logs and also logic) like a failure (concurrency of some sort) leading
to a transaction rollback *after* the GH API call, so the cron's DB
actions are rollbacked (then performed again on the next run) *but*
the GH API interactions are not rollbacked, and are thus performed
twice.
Since the entire purpose of the feedback table is to send comments,
send both "staging failed" and "Linked pull requests" comments via
that.
Once more unto the breach, with the issue of pushing stagings (with
"closes" annotations) to the target branch making GH close the PR &
send the hook, which makes runbot_merge consider the PR closed and the
staging cancelled.
This probably still doesn't fix the issue, but it reduces the
problematic window: before this, the process first updates the
branches, then marks the PRs, then comments & closes the PRs, and
finally commits the PR update.
This means as runbot_merge is sending a comment & a status update to
each PR in a staging, GH has some time to send the "closed" webhook
behind its back, making the controller immediately cancel the current
staging, especially if the v3 endpoint is a bit slow.
By moving the commenting & closing out of the critical path (to the
feedback queue), this window should be significantly shortened.
Runbot is supposed to run on v11, yet because the runbot_merge test
suite was built on v12 due to an API change in
Registry.enter_test_mode the (local) test suite would only run on v12.
Add a conditional pick such that the test suite can run transparently
on both v11 and v12.
Normally, two PRs from the same owner with the same branch
name (source) are batched together, and that's represented by batching
them by label e.g. two PRs labelled
`odoo-dev:12.0-snailmail-address-format-anp` means they probably
should be merged together somehow.
*However* this is an issue when editing via the web interface: if the
editor doesn't have write access to the repository, github
automatically createa a branch called `patch-<n>` under their
ownership, where `<n>` is a sequence (of sorts?) *within the user's
fork*.
This means it's possible (and indeed easy) to create <foo>:patch-1 on
different (non-forks) but related repositories without them actually
being co-dependent, at which point they get blocked on one
another, which can lead to them being blocked (period) due to runbot
not currently handling co-dependencies between PRs.
Currently, if a staging is ongoing or failed one has to hunt for the
staging branches on the runbot dashboard in order to find out what
happens.
This adds a dropdown to the staging box/block providing direct status
and access to all the CI information whether the CI is ongoing or done,
successful or not.
rebase() can fail after merge(), during set_ref(), having already
updated the target.
Under the pre-rebase model, stage() assumed on a staging failure on a
given repo it only had to rollback stagings having succeeded. This
assumption fails in a post-rebase model as even a failed staging can
have modified the target, leading to the next staging (if multiple
batches are ready) containing the failed one.
Things can get really strange if the set_ref failure was (as it
probably is) some sort of transient failure, as the following staging
will likely succeed (under the assumption that most PRs/batches pass
staging) as PR1's content gets merged as part of PR2, and PR2 is
merged empty of content later on.
Send reponse comments when users mis-interact with robodoo e.g.
send comments they don't have the right to, or commands which don't make
sense in the PR's state, or tentative interactions with robodoo from
unmanaged PRs.
People get surprised/worried that their ready PR never gets picked up,
but it's because there is a non-ready (either unreviewed or failing CI)
pull request linked to it. This aims to at least warn them of the issue.
Taking 3 statements to create a branch before working with it is a bit
much, a simple helper reduces that to a single function call with 4
params (from 3 function calls with 1/4/1 params).
They're completely independent (or should be), and there's no reason
for the tagging cron to extend the "lifetime" of the main cron's
transaction (and thus extend the odds of racey behaviour).
If a staging covers multiple repositories and there's a fast-forward
issue on any but the first repo/target, runbot_merge attempted to
revert the commits it had fast-forwarded on the previous repos.
This doesn't work when branch-protection is active, unless runbot_merge
is a repository administrator (and branch protection is not configured
to apply to those): reverting is done by push-forcing the original head
back onto the ref, which branch-protection unconditionally precludes.
This commit does not entirely fix the race condition (it does not look
like github provides any way to do that), but it should significantly
reduce the race-condition window as it performs a semi-wet run of the
fast-forward process on the tmp branches before actually updating the
targets. That way the only remaining breakage should be when somebody
pushes on repositories 1.. between the test-FF on tmp branches and the
actual fast forward.
While at it, updated the github API thing to *always* dump the JSON body
on an error response, if the content-type is json.
Previously, runbot_merge assumed github would return commits in
topological order (from base to head of PR). However as in the UI
github sorts commits using the author's date field, so depending on
rebasing/cherrypick/... it's possible to have the head of the commit
be "younger" than the rest. In that case robodoo will try to merge
it *first*, then attempt to merge the rest on top of it (-ish, it'd
probably make a hash of it if that worked), at which point github
replies with a 204 (nothing to merge) because the PR head has already
included everything which topologically precedes it.
Fix: re-sort commits topologically when fetching the PR's log. That
way they're rebased in the proper order and correctly linked to one
another.
Example problematic PR: odoo/enterprise#2794, the commits are
773aef03a59d50b33221d7cdcdf54cd0cbe0c914
author.date: 2018-10-01T14:58:38Z
879547c8dd37e7f413a97393a82f92377785b50b (parent: 773aef03)
author.date: 2018-10-01T12:02:08Z
Because 879547c8 is "older" than 773aef03, github returns it first,
both in the UI and via the API.
Also fixed up support for committer & author metadata in fake_github
so the local tests would both expose the issue properly and allow
fixing it.
* [ADD] runbot_merge: more informative states to stagings on error
Currently, when a staging fails for other reasons than a CI failure:
* the staging having been cancelled is known implicitly, because the
staging will be deactivated but will never get a status beyond
pending (because it's not found when looking for it since it's not
`active`)
* the fast-forward having failed is completely silent (logging aside),
it looks for all the world like the staging succeeded
Timeout fails the PR already, but split-on-timeout was not so fix that
one bit.
* [FIX] odoo/odoo#cb2862ad2a60ff4ce66c14e7af2548fdf6fc5961
Closes#41
The webhook used the "sender" of the event as comment author, however
if the comment is edited by a maintainer github sends a
"issue_comment" event with that maintainer as sender.
This means a random user could create a comment with a robodoo
command, and if a registered reviewer happened to edit the comment the
command would suddenly be taken in account. This was not the intention.
I just spent 10mn trying to find out why staging 28 was cancelled
(a p=0 comment). Add a common prefix to all staging cancels to make
them easier to find.
staging delay was mistakenly commented in
bb664455ec
Also modified testing fixtures so the staging delay is not enabled when
running tests locally: on my box it increases the local runtime from
~70s to ~1500s (20s/staging, ~1 staging/test, 73 tests)
Before this, the bot would only acknowledge commands of the form
<botname>: <commands>
but since the bot is an actual user, people regularly use `@<botname>`
as it seems like it should work *and* provides for autocompletion.
Support that, as well as the octothorpe in case users want to pound
robodoo.
Related to odoo/runbot#38
A limitation to 50 commits PRs was put in place to avoid rebasing
huge PRs (as a rebase means 1 merge + 1 commit *per source commit*),
however the way it was done would also limit regular merges, and the
way the limitation was implemented was not clear.
* explicitly check that limit in the rebase case
* make error message on PR sizes (rebase 50 or merge 250) clearer
* remove limit from commits-fetching (check it beforehand)
* add a test to merge >50 commits PRs
* fix the local implementation of pulls/:number/commits to properly
paginate
2b1cd83b07 fixed a bug in PR
squashing (introduced when it was mis-rebuilt on top of rebase) which
was immediately committed & pushed so we could fix the running
mergebot.
This adds a test for that issue, it was checked to fail for
2b1cd83b075a99da7ed905b9e62d7e5acb48b253~1 and work as of the current
head.
Turns out the previous tests checked all the new/complex features to
see if they worked correctly, but I completely forgot that the
previously working squash had been rebuild.
Staging 13 tried merging 3 PRs (27085, 27083 and 27071) and supposedly
succeeded *but* only merged one of the 3 PRs despite marking all three
as merged. I tried building a few tests constructing multi-PR graphs
and checking them, but the only thing they exposed was the local
github implementation not correctly updating merge targets.
So fixed that, which is good.
Doesn't tell me why the staging didn't work right though.
a0063f9df0 slightly improved the error
message on non-PR ci failure (e.g. a community PR makes enterprise
break) by adding the failed commit, but that's still not exactly clear,
even for technical users (plus it requires having access to all the
repos which is not the case for everyone).
This commit further improves the situation by storing the target_url
and description fields of the commit statuses, and printing out the
target_url on failure if it's present.
That way the PR comment denoting build failure should now have a link to
the relevant failed build on runbot, as that's the target_url it
provides.
The change is nontrivial as it tries to be compatible with both old and
new statuses storage format, such that there is no migration to perform.
If CI fails on a non-PR'd branch of a staging (e.g. given repos A and B
and a PR to A, CI fails on the staging branch to B), the error message
(log and comment on the PR) is unhelpful as it states that the staging
failed for "unknown reason".
Improve this by providing the failed CI context and the commit, which
should allow finding out the branch & CI logs, and understanding the
why of the failure.
Fixes#36
Before this change, when staging batches only affecting one repo (of n)
the unaffected repositories would get a staging branch exactly matching
the target.
As a result, either runbot_merge or runbot would simply return the
result of an unrelated build, potentially providing incorrect
information and either failing a staging which should have succeeded
(e.g. change in repo A broke B, PR is making a change in repo A which
fixes B, but B's state is reported as the previous broken build) or
succeeding a staging which should have failed (change in repo A breaking
B except a previous build of the exact same B succeeded with a different
A and is returned).
To fix this issue, create a dummy commit at the head of each staging
branch. Because commit dates are included in the hash and have a second
precision it's pretty unlikely that we can get built duplicates, but
just to be completely sure some random bits are added to the commit
message as well.
Various tests fixed to correctly handle the extra dummy commit on
staging branches.
fixes#35
After discussion with mat, rco and moc, if a PR is updated it should
be unapproved for safety reasons: if a reviewer approves a PR, that's
what should be merged, if there are things to fix/change a reviewer
should at least rubberstamp the changes to avoid mistakes.
This is a bit more noisy/constraining, but can be changed or tuned
afterwards if it's considered too constraining.
rebase-and-merge (or squash-merge if pr.commits == 1) remains default,
but there are use cases like forward ports (merge branch X into branch
X+1 so that fixes to X are available in X+1) where we really really
don't want to rebase the source.
This commits implements two alternative merge methods:
If the PR and its target are ~disjoint, perform a straight merge (same
as old default mode).
However if the head of the PR has two parents *and* one of these
parents is a commit of the target, assume this is a merge commit to
fix a conflict (common during forward ports as X+1 will have changed
independently from and incompatibly with X in some ways).
In that case, merge by copying the PR's head atop the
target (basically rebase just that commit, only updating the link to
the parent which is part of target so that it points to the head of
target instead of whatever it was previously).
After discussion with al & rco, conclusion was default PR merging method
should be rebase-and-merge for cleaner history.
Add test for that scenario (w/ test for final DAG) and implement this
change.
* Add ids accessor to the remote Model fake
* Explicitly ignore order when unnecessary, a test fails since the
ordering of prs has been changed for UI purposes. This is only an
issue for Remote though it's unclear why (as the local Issue/PR
objects should still have a per-repo sequence)
The old "sync pr" thing is turning out to be a bust, while it
originally worked fine these days it's a catastrophe as the v4 API
performances seem to have significantly degraded, to the point that
fetching all 15k PRs by pages of 100 simply blows up after a few
hundreds/thousands.
Instead, add a table of PRs to sync: if we get notified of a
"compatible" PR (enabled repo & target) which we don't know of, create
an entry in a "fetch jobs" table, then a cron will handle fetching the
PR then fetching/applying all relevant metadata (statuses,
review-comments and reviews).
Also change indexation of Commit(sha) and PR(head) to hash, as btree
indexes are not really sensible for such content (the ordering is
unhelpful and the index locality is awful by design/definition).
Previously when splitting staging we'd create two never-staged
stagings. In a system where the stagings get deleted once done
with (succeeeded or failed) that's not really important, but now that
we want to keep stagings around inactive things get problematic as
this method gunks up the stagings table, plus the post-split stagings
would "steal" the original's batches, losing information (relation
between stagings and batches).
Replace these empty stagings with dedicated *split* objects. A batch
can belong to both a staging and a split, the split is deleted once a
new staging has been created from it.
Eventually we may want to make batches shared between stagings (so we
can track the entire history of a batch) but currently that's only
PR-level.
If we want a dashboard with a history of stagings, maybe not deleting
them would be a good idea.
A replacement for the headless stagings would probably be a good idea:
currently they're created when splitting a failed staging containing
more than one batch, but their only purpose is as splits of existing
batches to be deactivated/deleted to be re-staged (new batches &
stagings are created then as e.g. some of the batches may not be
merge-able anymore) and that's a bit weird.
Github apparently doesn't sync merged/closed PRs (which makes sense
but isn't really documented) so strip out test and assume that never
happens (with a log error in case it ever does).
Remote's labels are not entirely under our control as the part before
":" is the *owner* of the source repo => introduce additional "owned"
fixture to handle this case, as it may diverge from the "user" role if
running the tests against an organisation.
