This tests that the new setup *does* allow both removing PRs from a
forward-ported batch (something which may have worked previously
already, anyway) and importantly *adding* PRs to a forward ported
batch.
The updated batch behaves somewhat like a new batch, but it should
retain the history via linking through the batch, and it allows
cross-repo fixes which were not necessary earlier (e.g. because we're
touching an API of repo A which was not used in repo B in earlier
branches, but now is), something which was not really possible before
the refactoring of batches & co.
Thank god I have a bunch of tests because once again I forgot / missed
a bunch of edge cases in doing the conversion, which the tests
caught (sadly that means I almost certainly broke a few untested edge
cases).
Important notes:
Handling of parent links
------------------------
Unlike PRs, batches don't lose their parent info ever, the link is
permanent, which is convenient to trawl through a forward port
(currently implemented very inefficiently, maybe we'll optimise that
in the future).
However this means the batch having a parent and the batch's PRs
having parents are slightly different informations, one of the edge
cases I missed is that of conflicting PRs, which are deparented and
have to be merged by hand before being forward ported further, I had
originally replaced the checks on a pr and its sibling having parents
by just the batch.
Batches & targets
-----------------
Batches were originally concepted as being fixed to a target and PRs
having that target, a PR being retargeted would move it from one batch
to an other.
As it turns out this does not work in the case where people retarget
forward-port PRs, which I know they do because #551
(2337bd8518). I could not think of a
good way to handle this issue as is, so scrapped the moving PRs thing,
instead one of the coherence checks of a batch being ready is that all
its PRs have the same target, and a batch only has a target if all its
PRs have the same target.
It's possible for somewhat odd effects to arise, notably if a PR is
closed (removed from batch), the other PRs are retargeted, and the new
PR is reopened, it will now be on a separate batch even if it also
gets retargeted. This is weird. I don't quite know how I should handle
it, maybe batches could merge if they have the same target and label?
however batches don't currently have a label so...
Improve limits
--------------
Keep limits on the PRs rather than lift them on the batchL if we can
add/remove PRs of batches having different limits on different PRs of
the same batch is reasonable.
Also leave limit unset by default: previously, the limit was eagerly
set to the tip (accessible) branch. That doesn't really seem
necessary, so stop doing that.
Also remove completely unnecessary `max` when trying to find a PR's
next target: `root` is either `self` or `self.source_id`, so it should
not be possible for that to have a later target.
And for now ensure the limits are consistent per batch: a PR defaults
to the limit of their batch-mate if they don't have one, and if a
limit is set via command it's set on all PRs of a batch.
This commit does not allow differential limits via commands, they are
allowed via the backend but not really tested. The issue is mostly
that it's not clear what the UX should look like to have clear and not
super error prone interactions. So punt on it for now, and hopefully
there's no hole I missed which will create inconsistent batches.
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?
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`)
Continuation of 327500bc83 for an other
edge case of closing a PR to a detached branch with a merged
descendant. The mergebot would:
- warn on the parent about it being detached due to being closed
- then warn on the child about it being detached due to the parent
being closed (despite it being merged already)
- then warn the parent *again* due to the child being detached
At least some of those messages were still produced by the test case,
stop them.
Issue was noticed on odoo/odoo#145969 and odoo/odoo#145984 due to 16.2
being deactivated.
The notification is both noise and confusing: we're telling the
author (and reviewer, and anyone else subscribed) that they need to
merge a merged PR.
Fixes#855
Currently, once a source PR has been merged it's not possible to set
or update a limit, which can be inconvenient (e.g. people might have
forgotten to set it, or realise after the fact that setting one is not
useful, or might realise after the fact that they should *unset* it).
This PR relaxes that constraint (which is not just a relaxation as it
requires a bunch of additional work and validation), it should now be
possible to:
- update the limit to any target, as long as that target is at or
above the current forwardport tip's
- with the exception of a tip being forward ported, as that can't be
cancelled
- resume a forward port stopped by a previously set limit (just
increase it to whatever)
- set a limit from any forward-port PR
- set a limit from a source, post-merge
The process should also provide pretty chatty feedback:
- feedback on the source and closest root
- feedback about adjustments if any (e.g. setting the limit to B but
there's already a forward port to C, the 'bot should set the limit
to C and tell you that it happened and why)
Fixes#506
Currently a user is not notified that the parent of a detached PR
needs to be independently approved and may miss that information. Add
a notification to *that* PR as well.
Fixes#788
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
I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!!!
The previous implementation of labels lookup was really not
intuitive (it was just a char field, and matched labels by equality
including the owner tag), and was also full of broken edge
cases (e.g. traceback if a label matched multiple PRs in the same repo
because people reuse branch names).
Tried messing about with contextual `display_name` and `name_search`
on PRs but the client goes wonky in that case, and there is no clean
autocomplete for non-relational fields.
So created a view which reifies labels, and that can be used as the
basis for our search. It doesn't have to be maintained by hand, can be
searched somewhat flexibly, we can add new view fields in the future
if desirable, and it seems to work fine providing a nice
understandable UX, with the reliability of using a normal Odoo model
the normal way.
Also fixed the handling of bump PRs, clearly clearing the entire field
before trying to update existing records (even with a link_to
inbetween) is not the web client's fancy, re-selecting the current
label would just empty the thing entirely.
So use a two-step process slightly closer to the release PRs instead:
- first update or delete the existing bump PRs
- then add the new ones
The second part is because bump PRs are somewhat less critical than
release, so it can be a bit more DWIM compared to the more deliberate
process of release PRs where first the list of repositories involved
has to be set up just so, then the PRs can be filled in each of them.
Fixes#697
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
Currently, if a PR forward-port PR gets detached the reason for it is
not always obvious, and may have to be hunted in the logs or in
"sibling" PRs.
By writing a forward port reason (hopefully) ever time we detach a PR,
and displaying that reason in the form and dashboard, the
justification should be a lot more obvious.
Fixes#679
When inserting a new branch, if there are extant forward ports
sequences spanning over the insertion, new forward ports must be
created for the new branch.
This was the case, *however* one of the cases was handled incorrectly:
PR batches (PRs to different repositories staged together) must be
forward-ported as batches. However when creating the "insert" batches,
these PRs would be split apart, leading to either inconsistent states
or an inability to merge the new forward ports (if they are
co-dependent which is a common case). This is because the handler
would look for all the relevant PRs to forward ports, but it would
fail to group them by label thereafter.
Fix that, create the `insert` batches correctly, and augment the
relevant test with an additional repository to test this case.
No gh issue was created, but this problem was reported on
odoo/odoo#110029 and odoo/enterprise#35838 (they were re-linked by
hand in the runbot and mergebot, but on github the labels remain
visibly different, one having the slug ZCwE while the other
hasO7Pr).
It's possible that the problem had occurred previously and not been
noticed (or reported), though it's also possible this issue had never
occurred before: for the latest freeze (16.1) there were 18 forward
ports spanning the insertion, but of them only 2 were the same batch.
It's almost certainly not useful, save as a minor convenience for
tests: decorrelating the branch sequence and the fp sequence seems
like it would only be extremely confusing, and on the mergebot all the
fp_sequence values are set to the default while the sequence values
are set to something useful and sensible (kinda).
Fixes#584
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
- avoid pinging the author of the fw PR (which is the forward-bot
itself)
- instead ping the author and reviewer of the source, and possibly the
reviewer of the PR if any
- might also be a good idea to ping reviewers of intermediate PRs?
Github can fail to create the magic refs on PRs
(`pull/refs/?/head`). Since forwardport relies on these refs to fetch
PR content this is an issue when it occurs, as the forward ports fail
in a loop.
After discussion with Github support, it turns out Github enabled
`allowReachableSHA1InWant` a while back, meaning it's possible to
fetch content by commit (rather than ref) as long as the content is
"in network".
Use this property as fallback when checking if we can see the PR head
before forward porting.
Also:
- remove explicit configuration of GC during fetch, it doesn't disable
the autogc (yet?) but that's likely going to happen anyway
- update logging and logger hierarchy during forward port to make
things clearer and easier to extract, although based on PR id rather
than number
- rate limit failing forward ports to avoid running them on every cron
(~ every minute), run them every ~30mn instead, this provides higher
odds of recovery with less log garbage in case of transient github
failure, and if the PR is stuck it limits the log pollution
Fixes#658
I'm surprised this ever worked, I guess concurrent tests stopped
working long before that? Or I misunderstood some of the historical
failures as transient?
During the cleanup of the forwardport test, I'd empty out the
`user_cache_dir('forwardport') / owner`, except the owner is always
the same (more or less) so all the tests check out their repos (and
working copies) in the same directory. If one test is cleaning up
while an other is performing a forward port, the second will blow up.
Also move the filestore to a tempdir, especially during creation of
the template db: it gets leaked so over time that generates gigabytes
of data which doesn't get cleaned up. But the template db filestore is
only "necessary" during the creation of the template, once the
template's been created it's of no use and won't be copied to create
the test dbs (though it could be, I guess).
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
- trying to r+ a detached PR *via the forwardbot* should warn, same as
a non-forwardport PR
- the following sibling of a closed PR should be detached from
it (probably)
- when a closed forward-port PR is reopened, there should be a
notification that it is detached and merged via mergebot
Fixes#617
Existing conflict style is the local default ("merge", most
likely). `diff3` is a lot more informative as it provides the common
ancestor's code for the hunk, which helps see how the two branches
diverged and thus resolve the conflict.
Even better would be zdiff3 but that's a bit too recent...
Fixes#619
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
On two of the freezes, thereafter the logs showed serial crashes in
the forwardport cron when trying to find the insertion point for a new
forward-port.
The first time was not really diagnosed, the second time the cause was
found to be a retargeted PR which led to a failure of the "insertion"
forward port, which did not take that possibility in account (it
assumed -- sensibly I believed -- that an intermediate FP following a
branch insertion would always succeed, sadly the malevolent universe
had other plans).
So only insert the new forward port inside its sequence (if necessary)
if the forward port actually succeeded, otherwise ignore it.
Fixes#551
The freeze wizard has support for merging freeze / release PRs on each
of the newly created branches. But since this would be done by, well,
merging, those PRs would get forward-ported to master, and would have
to be closed there.
This creates additional work for the freeze master, and noise /
parasitic PRs.
Obviously it's possible for the freeze master to set some nonsense `up
to` (nonsense because the "real" limit doesn't exist yet at that
point), but really it never makes any sense to forward port release
PRs, so the wizard should do it.
Apparently 2.34:
* flipped around the "auto-merging" and "CONFLICT" messages on stdout,
so just match the second one with wildcards around to ignore the
location of the first
* changed the casing and content of everything after the `error` line
on stderr, so just ignore it all (none of it's actually useful
anyway)
The forward-port process currently automatically adds delegates of a
PR as delegates on its forward ports, but that only works for
the *source* pull request.
If a delegate is added to a forward-port, they were not able to
approve the followups to that initial port, which makes little sense.
Fixes#548
When using the forwardport's shortcut, the bot would not skip
already-approved PRs leading to a warning from the mergebot that the
PR was already approved (out of nowhere which was weird).
During the walk to the ancestors, skip any PR which is not
approvable (either already approved or in a state where that makes no
sense e.g. closed).
Fixes#543
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
* 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
Proper attribution is important in general, but especially for
external contributors. Before this change, and the previous change
fixing authorship deduplication, it was rather easy for a "squashed"
conflict commit (attributed to the 'bot for lack of a really clean
option) to get merged by mistake.
This commit changes two things:
* The mergebot now refuses to stage commits without an email set, the
github API rejects those commits anyway so any integration mode
other than `merge` would fail, just with a very unclear error
* The forwardbot now creates commits with an empty author / committer
email when the pull request as a whole has multiple authors /
committers. This leverages the mergebot update.
Also clean up the staging process to provide richer error reporting
using bespoke exceptions instead of simple assertions. I'm not sure
we've ever encountered most of these errors so they're really sanity
checks but the old reporting would be... less than great.
Fixes#505
a45f7260fa had intended to use the
original authorship information for conflict commit even if there were
multiple commits, as long as there was only one author (/ committer)
for the entire sequence.
Sadly the deduplication was buggy as it took the *authorship date* in
account, which basically ensured commits would never be considered as
having the same authorship outside of tests (where it was possible for
commits to be created at the same second).
Related to #505
If a PR is updated and has extent forward-ports, those forwardports
get updated automatically ("followup").
However there is an issue if the udpate causes a conflict in the
followup: the conflict gets silently pushed, and may fairly easily get
merged if it occurs in an area which the CI doesn't cover.
It's unclear what the policy really should be for this issue, and
there is no real way to *block* a pull request at the moment (save by
putting it in error at the mergebot level I guess?), so for now
clearly notify the user on both the modified PR and the followup,
with a comment on both.
We may want to revisit this eventually.
Fixes#467
There was already a check, but the way the check behaved
means *detached* PRs would not be prevented from setting their
forward-port, despite that not doing anything.
Fix it by checking if the current PR has a source, not a parent.
Fixes#465
On edition of an intermediate PR in a chain, merging the PR would lead
to *it* being forward-ported, duplicating the PRs already created
from *its* source.
Add a check for PRs in the target branch with the same source,
suppresses the forward-porting of the newly merged PR.
Fixes#451 (hopefully)
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.
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
2.29 changed the formatting of conflict labels (the stuff added at the
end of the closing conflict marker):
6cceea19eb
Used to be
>>>>>>> <commit>... <text>
now is
>>>>>>> <commit> (<text>)
Just ignore everything after the commit hash.
The exponential backoff offsets from the write_date of the children
PRs, however it doesn't reset, so the offsetting gets bumped up way
more than originally expected or designed if the child PRs are under
active development for some reason.
Fix this by adding a field to specifically record the date of merge of
a PR, and check that feature against the backoff offset. This should
provide more regular and reliable backoff.
Fixes#369
