Currently, runbot is using a single Dockerfile maintained in a data file
in the source code. This situation is not convenient for testing Odoo in
different environments.
With this commit, a Dockerfile Odoo model is used to allow usage of
multiple Docker containers.
This model comes with a pre-defined Dockerfile that can be used to build
the current Odoo supported versions (12.0 up to 14.0).
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
The old order based on status is not really needed anymore:
- Scheduled builds have a special condition and already have a low priority.
- Indirect builds don't exist anymore
- It is actually questionnable to postpone rebuild. Sometimes they are needed but stuck.
This new proposition will keep subbuild scheduling close to parent build. Some build may take 2 hours
because they are parallelized and children are stuck. Priority should be defined by top parent.
The pdf417gen python library is needed for the l10n_cl_edi. As this module
is not mandatory, the library was not added in the requirements.txt
file.
In order to test the feature on the runbot, this commit adds the library
in the Docker container.
Related work:
odoo/odoo#54995odoo/enterprise#12080odoo/enterprise@8290bfaf
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.
Runbot initial architechture was working for a single odoo repo, and was
adapted to build enterprise. Addition of upgrade repo and test began
to make result less intuitive revealing more weakness of the system.
Adding to the oddities of duplicate detection and branch matching,
there was some room for improvement in the runbot models.
This (small) commit introduce the runbot v5.0, designed for a closer
match of odoo's development flows, and hopefully improving devs
experience and making runbot configuration more flexible.
**Remotes:** remote intoduction helps to detect duplicate between odoo and
odoo-dev repos: a commit is now on a repo, a repo having multiple remote.
If a hash is in odoo-dev, we consider that it is the same in odoo.
Note: github seems to manage commit kind of the same way. It is possible
to send a status on a commit on odoo when the commit only exists in
odoo-dev.
This change also allows to remove some repo duplicate configuration
between a repo and his dev corresponding repo.
(modules, server files, manifests, ...)
**Trigger:** before v5.0, only one build per repo was created, making it
difficult to tweak what test to execute in what case. The example use
case was for upgrade. We want to test upgrade to master when pushing on
odoo. But we also want to test upgrade the same way when pushing on
upgrade. We introduce a build that should be ran on pushing on either
repo when each repo already have specific tests.
The trigger allows to specify a build to create with a specific config.
The trigger is executed when any repo of the trigger repo is pushed.
The trigger can define depedencies: only build enterprise when pushing
enterprise, but enterprise needs odoo. Test upgrade to master when pushing
either odoo or upgrade.
Trigger will also allows to extract some build like cla that where
executed on both enterprise and odoo, and hidden in a subbuild.
**Bundle:** Cross repo branches/pr branches matching was hidden in build
creation and can be confusing. A build can be detected as a duplicate
of a pr, but not always if naming is wrong or traget is invalid/changes.
This was mainly because of how a community ref will be found. This was
making ci on pr undeterministic if duplicate matching fails. This was
also creating two build, with one pointing to the other when duplicate
detection was working, but the visual result can be confusing.
Associtaions of remotes and bundles fix this by adding all pr and
related branches from all repo in a bundle. First of all this helps to
visualise what the runbot consider has branch matching and that should
be considered as part of the same task, giving a place where to warn
devs of some possible inconsistencies. Associate whith repo/remote, we
can consider branches in the same repo in a bundle as expected to have
the same head. Only one build is created since trigger considers repo,
not remotes.
**Batch:** A batch is a group of build, a batch on a bundle can be
compared to a build on a branch in previous version. When a branch
is pushed, the corresponding bundle creates a new batch, and wait for
new commit. Once no new update are detected in the batch for 60 seconds,
All the trigger are executed if elligible. The created build are added
to the batch in a batch_slot. It is also possible that an corresponding
build exists (duplicate) and is added to the slot instead of creating a
new build.
Co-authored-by d-fence <moc@odoo.com>
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
