Seems to be a pretty long-standing issue but I'd not noticed it before
as it's rather rarely taken & our sentry remains rather blown to hell,
I only happened to stumble upon the issue in the logs.
There's no ``number`` attribute on the repository object (to which
``_load_pr`` belongs). We obviously want to use the number of the PR
we're currently loading.
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
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
When it updated tagging e82de3136b also
incorrectly replaced a `pr` by `pr.display_name`, probably leftover
from an attempt to update a callsite from `str(pr)` to
`pr.display_name` which I missed when reverting that.
Anyway at that section, `pr` is an integer (as it comes from an SQL
query) not an object.
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
Up till now if an FF failed with an exception having neither cause nor
context the cancel reason would be an empty string.
Fallback on stringifying the exception itself as a last resort.
Genericise runbot_merge's tagging (move states to the "UI" but only
store / manage actual tags), and remove forwardport.tagging as it's
now redundant.
Closes#232
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
Remove original-signed-off-by, doesn't actually seem useful given the
semantics of signed-off-by according to the kernel doc'. Plus it
didn't actually work as the intent was to keep the signoff of the
original PR in the forward-port, but that signoff is not part of the
commit we're cherrypicking (it gets added on the fly when the commit
is merged).
Therefore explicitly get the ack-chain into the PR: when merging an FP
PR, try to integrate the signoff of the original PR, that of the final
FP pr, and while at it that of the last explicit update in the commit
chain (e.g. in case there's been a conflict or something).
Fixes#284
* only provide fields which make sense for the mergebot
* provide formatting & searchability for review rights records so
they're visible from the list directly
This is more of a sanity check as it normally should not be a factor:
labels generally contain the target name, and staging checks are
performed per-target so we're not mixing multiple targets anyway.
But let's say a third-party creates a fix-foo branch for A and a
fix-foo branch for B, we want to ensure they're not considered batched
together.
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
Refactor the selection thingie, hopefully in a way which doesn't
absolutely crater performances, so that it's possible to explain the
reason why a PR is considered blocked.
Despite the existing dedup' sometimes the "xxx failed on this
forward-port PR" would still get multiplicated due to split builds
e.g. in odoo/odoo#43935 4 such messages appear within ~5 minutes, then
one more 10mn later.
This is despite all of them having the same "build" (target_url) and
status (failure). Since the description is the only thing that's not
logged I assume that's the field which varies and makes the dedup'
fail. Therefore:
* add the description to the logging (when getting a status ping)
* exclude the description when checking if a new status should be
taken in account or ignored: the build (and thus url) should change
on rebuild
Hopefully fixes#281
A while back I implemented name_get/display_name to print PRs using
the canonical github format (owner/repo#number), however looks like
some of the logging calls were still using bespoke formatting.
Interaction of CacheMiss and BaseModel is fucked, leading to an
infinite loop when trying to provide useful __str__ on a model (by
accessing model fields).
Using `modified` seems safer than just blowing the cache with respect
to stored computed fields depending on PR state (not sure there are
any but it's likely).
Previous version incorrectly browsed the PR *number* (rather than ID)
so at best it would do nothing and at worst it might go and notify the
wrong PR entirely.
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
When closing a PR, github completely separates the events "close the
PR" and "comment on the PR" (even when using "comment and close" in
the UI, a feature which isn't even available in the API). It doesn't
aggregate the notifications either, so users following the PR for
one reason or another get 2 notifications / mails every time a PR
gets merged, which is a lot of traffic, even more so with
forward-ported PRs multiplying the amount of PRs users are involved
in.
The comment on top of the closure itself is useful though: it allows
tracking exactly where and how the PR was merged from the PR, this
information should not be lost.
While more involved than a simple comment, *deployments* seem like
a suitable solution: they allow providing links as permanent
information / metadata on the PRs, and apparently don't trigger
notifications to users.
Therefore, modify the "close" method so it doesn't do
"comment-and-close", and provide a way to close PRs with non-comment
feedback: when the feedback's message is structured (parsable as
json) assume it's intended as deployment-bound notifications.
TODO: maybe add more keys to the feedback event payload, though in my
tests (odoo/runbot#222) none of the deployment metadata
outside of "environment" and "target_url" is listed on the PR
UI
Fixes#224
It's a waste to lose the entire staging if it's only a short blip /
delay thing, so retry multiple times. Add utility function to make
backoff functions easier (though the UI is not great ATM).
Also log the "left" parent of a merge commit (which should be the
"base") when creating it, for additional post-mortem information.
Turns out not only can that operation fail, that operation can succeed
but have its effect delayed. To try and guard against that,
immediately check that we get the correct ref' after having reset it.
This is the cause of the November 6 mess: when preparing a staging,
the mergebot does the following,
1. get the head of <branch>
2. hard-reset tmp.<branch> to that
3. start merging PRs, which requires getting the current state of
tmp.<branch> back
On the 6ths, these steps looked like this
```text
2019-11-06 10:03:21,588 head(odoo/odoo, master) -> ab6d0c38512e4944458b0b6f80f38d6c26b6b597
2019-11-06 10:03:22,375 set_ref(update, odoo/odoo, tmp.master, ab6d0c38512e4944458b0b6f80f38d6c26b6b597 -> 200 (OK)
2019-11-06 10:03:28,674 head(odoo/odoo, tmp.master) -> de2a852e7cc1f390e50190cfc497bc253687fba8
2019-11-06 10:03:30,292 head(odoo/odoo, tmp.master) -> de2a852e7cc1f390e50190cfc497bc253687fba8
```
So the 'bot fetched the commit at the head of master (ab6d0c), reset
tmp.master to that... and then got a different commit when it fetched
the tmp head to stage a PR on it.
That different head being of course a previous rejected staging. When
the new staging succeeded, it brought the entire thing in and made a
mess.
This was compounded by an issue I still have to investigate: the
staging of the new PR took the wrong base commit *but the right base
tree*, as a result the first thing it did was *reverse the entire
previous commit* (without that we could probably have left it as-is
rather than need to force-push master -- twice).
