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 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
If odoo is configured with a logfile, log to a separate file in the
same directory.
* log request / response when querying github
* log *received* requests for webhooks
Either way log the entire request metadata, though only the first 400
bytes/chars of the entity bodies.
This is intended to help mostly with post-mortem debugging: timestamps
from the main log can be correlated with the timestamps from the
github log in order to have more relevant information, both for
internal use and to send to gh support.
Closes#257
Ensure that the commits we're creating are based on the commit we're
expecting.
This is the second cause (and really the biggest issue) of the "Great
Reset" of master on November 6: a previous commit explains the issue
with non-linear github operations (update a branch, get the branch
head, they don't match).
The second issue is why @awa-odoo's PR was merged with a reversion of
@tivisse's as part of its first commit.
The stage for this issues is based on the incoherence noted above:
having updated a branch, getting that branch's head afterward may
still return the old head. However either delays allow that update to
be visible *or* different operations can have different views of the
system. Regardless it's possible that `repos/merges` "sees" a
different branch head than a `git/refs/heads` which preceded it by a
few milliseconds. This is an issue because github's API does not
provide a generic "rebase" operation, and the operation is thus
implemented by hand:
1. get the head of the branch we're trying to rebase a PR on
2. for each commit of the PR (oldest to newest), *merge* commit on the
base and associate the merge commit with the original
3. reset the branch to the head we stored previously
4. for each commit of the PR, create a new commit with:
- the metadata of the original
- the tree of the merge commit
- the "current head" as parent
then update the "current head" to that commit's ref'
If the head fetched at (1) and the one the first merge of (2) sees are
different, the first commit created during (4) will look like it has
not only its own changes but also all the changes between the two
heads, as github records not changes but snapshots of working
copies (that's what a git tree is, a complete snapshot of the entire
state of a working copy).
As a result, we end up not only with commits from a previous staging
but the first commit of the next PR rollbacks the changes of those
commits, making a mess of the entire thing twice over. And because the
commits of the previous staging get reverted, even if there was a good
reason for them to fail (not the case here it was a false positive)
the new staging might just go through.
As noted at the start, mitigate that by asserting that the merge
commits created at (2) have the "base parent" (left parent / parent
from the base branch) we were expecting, and cancel the staging if
that's not the case.
This can probably be removed if / when odoo/runbot#247 happens.
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).
* 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 closing or reopening of PRs was not logged at all, which can be
inconvenient when trying to find out why PRs are closed (or not) in
the backend.
Also leverage PR display_name improvements from
3ce3dd9569 for more regular PR names in
logs.
When posting a reminder that there are open / waiting forward ports on
a source PR, also post *which* PRs those are.
While at it, move the cron code in a proper python file (so we can use
stuff from odoo.tools), and fix display_name so we can straight use
display_name as a github ref' ({owner}/{repo}#{number}). This impacts
log-grepping but it seems like an improvement nonetheless.
Closesodoo/runbot#228
* shorten the postfix, forwardbot is now a bigram!
* shorten the uniquifier: go from 5 to 3 bytes, and use urlsafe base64
that way we only have a 4-char uniquifier instead of 8
* while at it, fix deprecated calls to logging.warn (should be
logging.warning)
Fixes#226
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).
Attempt to avoid some of the comment spam by dedup-ing input (only
signaling when the status actually changes and ignoring identity
transformations) and in case of failing CI keeping the last failed
status and not signaling on the next update if it's the same failure.
Closes#225
* only show 2 stagings on cellphones as 4 is way too much, moving to a
vertical layout would probably be a bad idea as stagings can already
be very tall and then we have multiple branches stacked on one
another, unless we also make branches foldable
the more complete list of stagings (per branch) is available on the
branch's page anyway so providing a not-completely-broken home looks
more useful, and at a fundamental level the current / last staging
is really the one we care about
* remove the size bounds on stagings to avoid smushing all the cells
together and overlapping text, sadly can't overflow scroll the
stagings element because you can't have an overflow-x: scroll and an
overflow-y: visible (that becomes auto)
The staging validation routine would ignore stagings which were
cancelled or ff_failed, but it should also have ignored failed and
successful aka all terminal state.
Simplify the condition for that: just ignore a staging's validation if
the staging is not pending.
Closes#211
Turns out we don't want to close the cursor on success, we just want to
commit, but that's not what the default context manager does.
So don't use said context manager.
If a _validate call blows up, the entire Commit._notify cron gets
stuck, which is an issue because not only does it stop creating
forward ports, it also stops "progressing" stagings.
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).
Having all the feedback be sent by the mergebot user (github_token) is
confusing. Add a way to specify which field of project should be used to
source the token used when sending feedback.
Fixes#190
* 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)
* split action_cancel (UI button) from cancel (internal): since the
xhr mapping is weird, if there are available args the mapper thinks
it should pass the call context as reason which is unexpected
* make cancel a no-op when called on already inactive stagings
* make cancel work when called on multiple statgings
* make computing the active staging work properly in an
active_test=False context (e.g. when it's interacted with from the
form view because that comes from the list view which is
active_test=False, probably so we can see not just the stagings but
recursively see deactivated batches in deactivated stagings)
* don't show the cancel button on inactive stagings
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
Stagings have a "statuses" field which was shown but useless (as it's
a binary), they also have a "heads" field which only provides a
mapping of repository names to commits.
This change provides the staging heads as a commits m2m.
Fixes#178
* 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)
In case of error while fast-forwarding a staging to its source, we'd
log the target to which we couldn't FF. Sadly this relied on a
`repo_name` variable which (likely since the introduction of the
"safety dance" fast forwarding) can not actually be set in case of
failure.
So stash the relevant bit (the repo name) inside the FF error exception
and use that to compose our logging message instead of a variable which
can only be None.
Github constrains a single issue (/PR) number per repository, having
different targets does not allow two PRs to share a number.
Doesn't fix but should mitigate #169 slightly.
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
If the author of a PR has blocked the bot user, commenting on the PR
will fail. While comment failure is technically handled in the feedback
cron, the cron will simply retry commenting on every run filling the
log with useless unactionable garbage.
Retrying is the right thing to do in the normal case (e.g. changing tags
often has transient failures), but if we figure out we're blocked we
might as well just log a warning and drop the comment on the floor, it's
unlikely the situation will resolve itself.
Couldn't test it, because the block API is a developer preview and I
just can't get it to work anyway (404 on /user/blocks even providing the
suggested media type).
And the way the block is inferred is iffy (based on an error message),
the error body doesn't seem to provide any clean / clear cut error code:
{
"message": "Validation Failed",
"errors": [
{
"resource": "IssueComment",
"code": "unprocessable",
"field": "data",
"message": "User is blocked"
}
],
"documentation_url": "https://developer.github.com/v3/issues/comments/#create-a-comment"
}
No useful headers either.
Fixes#127
