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
Draft was added in 82174ae66e but turns
out the v13 ORM is not able to create a required column (even when
given a default value), at least for booleans.
So create it by hand.
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
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
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
* in the main dashboard, show the exact UTC timestamp (with a Z
marker) on hover, not just the relative delta
* in the branch details page, show the full timestamp, zoned, in
ISO-8601 format
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.
Before this, we would "roughly" select stagings by looking at stagings
whose heads matched a specific sha then validating them all. This
could perform extra validations on stagings once in a while but this
was assumed not to be much an issue, at least originally.
However two changes later on have contributed to this likely being the
cause of #429 (stagings never timing out):
* heads of the staging branches are uniquifier commits stored in the
heads map, but the actual heads of the stagings are also stored
there, some of which are no-ops (hence the uniquifiers) so assuming
repos A and B, if a staging contains PRs touching A then the head of
B actual will also be a head of B
* when a staging is validated, if it *contains* any pending result the
timeout limit gets bumped back
The issue here is that if a success / failure status is lost (which
would be the most common reason for timeouts) *and* someone has forked
and is regularly rebuilding a branch-head used as-is by a staging,
each of those rebuilds will trigger a validation of the staging, which
will find that one of the statuses is still pending (because we missed
the success / failure), which will bump up the timeout limit,
continuing until the branch stops getting rebuilt.
This is probably one of the reasons why some stagings last for *way*
more than 2h, though it is far from explaining all of them: 90% of the
stagings lasting more than *3*h end up succeeding. Tho it's always
possible that this is because someone notices and resends a success
for the missing status it seems somewhat doubtful. Oh well.
Also fix the incorrect log call on `update_timeout_limit` triggering.
I'd forgotten that in order to better handle cases where the CI is
highly backed up (and / or slow for some reason), we actually update
the CI timeout to really take the last "pending" status as the "true
start" of the CI. This might explain why lots of stagings needed extra
time: as of right now, out of 28835 stagings
- 20086 had their timeout bumped by more than 15mn
- 6967 had their timeout bumped by more than 30mn
- 264 had their timeout bumped by more than 1h
- 30 had their timeout bumped by more than 2h
Add some logging every time the CI is bumped this way, so we have
better visibility into that event.
Closes#429
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
When using @fw-bot close, a feedback would be created without a
message (rather than e.g. with an empty one). As a result, the
feedback-sending cron would crash, but not before having closed the
corresponding PR.
This would lead to closing the PR in a loop & spamming the logs with
tracebacks.
In Odoo 13, the cache middleware was modified to straight hit
`http.root` assuming it's the Odoo root object. When `http.root` is
replaced by a wrapping middleware, the entire thing blows up and shits
the bed.
Patch up by automatically delegating attribute accesses to the wrapped
application (which is probably Root), although why this is not just
folded into Root is getting less and less clear.
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.
Mistake in the statuses handling: the context is not sufficient to
uniquely identify a staging status as different repositories can get
the same status context (e.g. ci/runbot is present on all our
repositories).
This is only a visual problem, but the status dropdown on
stagings (both the dashboard and the branchwise listing) would reuse
one of the status with the context for all of them, leading to
incorrect links and misleading displays.
Fix by keying on (repo, context) instead, that's exactly why the
repository name was part of the status in the first place.
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
