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
* 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 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).
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).
* 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)
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
* 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)
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
Use the proper / actual "is there any stageable PR" query to check if
a PR is blocked as well, that way they shoudn't be diverging all the
time even if it might make PR.blocked a bit more expensive.
fixes#111
Will comment any time a statuses update folds to a CI failure on a
reviewed pull request. Might be somewhat spammy, we'll see.
No notification if the PR is not reviewed yet.
fixes#87
Before this, impacting a commit's statuses on the relevant PR or
staging would be performed immediatly / inline with its
consumption. This, however, is problematic if we want to implement
additional processing like #87 (and possibly though probably not #52):
webhook handlers should be kept short and fast, feeding back into
github would not be acceptable.
- flag commits as needing processing instead of processing them
immediately, this uses a partial index as it looks like the
recommended / proper way to index a boolean column in which one of
the values is searched much more than the other (todo: eventually
check if that actually does anythnig)
- add a new cron for commits processing
- alter tests so they use this new cron (mostly by migrating them to
`run_crons` though not solely as some still need more detailed
management to properly check intermediate steps)
Fix an issue with closing a staged PR while at it (the "merging" tag
would potentially never be removed).
If a PR gets sync'd to a known-valid commit, it should be marked as
valid rather than get in this weird state where it's merely open but
github knows it passes CI.
Fixes#72
The choice to keep sync'd PRs in error means it's possible to update
the code and re-run the PR directly without it going through review &
CI again, which is a bit odd. Remove the special case and always reset
a sync'd PR to opened for clarity and simplicity.
closes#71closes#83
In remote tests, if the deletion of a test repository fails (because
gh glitch) or the repo creation succeeded but reported a failure (for
some reason) the entire run is hosed because every test trying to
create a similarly named repository will explode.
Alter repomaker to just try to delete the repo, unless --no-delete
mode in which case just skip any further test trying to use the same
repository (not deleting the repo is the entire point of --no-delete,
as its purpose is the ability to do post-mortem debugging on
repository state).
closes#99
Github is subject to a fair amount of transient failures, which are
currently ill-logged: an exception is raised and the caller /
responsible might eventually log something, but it's not really
formalised and centralised, and is thus inconvenient to try and
post-mortem issues with github's support.
Change this such that *almost* all github API calls get extensively
logged (status, reason, all headers, body) on failure.
Also automatically sets debug logging for odoo in local tests, and
alter the fake response constructor thing so it doesn't set a json
mimetype when the body is not valid json.
Closes#98
When a user changes the merge method via github messages, no feedback is
sent. This could lead to strange behavior, for example when a user try
to joke with the mergebot like this:
> robodoo are you goin ti merge my PR rogntudju !
This sets the merge method to "merge" and the user is not aware of it.
If a transient github failure makes the integration fail but also
makes the following reset fail the entire staging process would be
cancelled (and operations so far rollbacked) except for the failure
comment which would be effected, as in odoo/odoo#26380.
By pushing the comment to the feedback queue, if the reset fails the
comment is rollbacked and "unqueued".
Closed tagging was broken since the raw-sql alterations of the close
hook: because it's raw SQL, the write() method doesn't get invoked
anymore and as a result the tagging feedback record is not created,
and never executed.
Add a test to check for the PR's proper tagging, and fix this issue by
explicitly creating a tagging record.
Closes#49
Hopefully this finally fixes the double commenting
issue (e.g. odoo/odoo#28160). This seems (according to reading the
logs and also logic) like a failure (concurrency of some sort) leading
to a transaction rollback *after* the GH API call, so the cron's DB
actions are rollbacked (then performed again on the next run) *but*
the GH API interactions are not rollbacked, and are thus performed
twice.
Since the entire purpose of the feedback table is to send comments,
send both "staging failed" and "Linked pull requests" comments via
that.
Once more unto the breach, with the issue of pushing stagings (with
"closes" annotations) to the target branch making GH close the PR &
send the hook, which makes runbot_merge consider the PR closed and the
staging cancelled.
This probably still doesn't fix the issue, but it reduces the
problematic window: before this, the process first updates the
branches, then marks the PRs, then comments & closes the PRs, and
finally commits the PR update.
This means as runbot_merge is sending a comment & a status update to
each PR in a staging, GH has some time to send the "closed" webhook
behind its back, making the controller immediately cancel the current
staging, especially if the v3 endpoint is a bit slow.
By moving the commenting & closing out of the critical path (to the
feedback queue), this window should be significantly shortened.
Runbot is supposed to run on v11, yet because the runbot_merge test
suite was built on v12 due to an API change in
Registry.enter_test_mode the (local) test suite would only run on v12.
Add a conditional pick such that the test suite can run transparently
on both v11 and v12.
Normally, two PRs from the same owner with the same branch
name (source) are batched together, and that's represented by batching
them by label e.g. two PRs labelled
`odoo-dev:12.0-snailmail-address-format-anp` means they probably
should be merged together somehow.
*However* this is an issue when editing via the web interface: if the
editor doesn't have write access to the repository, github
automatically createa a branch called `patch-<n>` under their
ownership, where `<n>` is a sequence (of sorts?) *within the user's
fork*.
This means it's possible (and indeed easy) to create <foo>:patch-1 on
different (non-forks) but related repositories without them actually
being co-dependent, at which point they get blocked on one
another, which can lead to them being blocked (period) due to runbot
not currently handling co-dependencies between PRs.
Currently, if a staging is ongoing or failed one has to hunt for the
staging branches on the runbot dashboard in order to find out what
happens.
This adds a dropdown to the staging box/block providing direct status
and access to all the CI information whether the CI is ongoing or done,
successful or not.
rebase() can fail after merge(), during set_ref(), having already
updated the target.
Under the pre-rebase model, stage() assumed on a staging failure on a
given repo it only had to rollback stagings having succeeded. This
assumption fails in a post-rebase model as even a failed staging can
have modified the target, leading to the next staging (if multiple
batches are ready) containing the failed one.
Things can get really strange if the set_ref failure was (as it
probably is) some sort of transient failure, as the following staging
will likely succeed (under the assumption that most PRs/batches pass
staging) as PR1's content gets merged as part of PR2, and PR2 is
merged empty of content later on.
Send reponse comments when users mis-interact with robodoo e.g.
send comments they don't have the right to, or commands which don't make
sense in the PR's state, or tentative interactions with robodoo from
unmanaged PRs.
People get surprised/worried that their ready PR never gets picked up,
but it's because there is a non-ready (either unreviewed or failing CI)
pull request linked to it. This aims to at least warn them of the issue.
Taking 3 statements to create a branch before working with it is a bit
much, a simple helper reduces that to a single function call with 4
params (from 3 function calls with 1/4/1 params).
They're completely independent (or should be), and there's no reason
for the tagging cron to extend the "lifetime" of the main cron's
transaction (and thus extend the odds of racey behaviour).
If a staging covers multiple repositories and there's a fast-forward
issue on any but the first repo/target, runbot_merge attempted to
revert the commits it had fast-forwarded on the previous repos.
This doesn't work when branch-protection is active, unless runbot_merge
is a repository administrator (and branch protection is not configured
to apply to those): reverting is done by push-forcing the original head
back onto the ref, which branch-protection unconditionally precludes.
This commit does not entirely fix the race condition (it does not look
like github provides any way to do that), but it should significantly
reduce the race-condition window as it performs a semi-wet run of the
fast-forward process on the tmp branches before actually updating the
targets. That way the only remaining breakage should be when somebody
pushes on repositories 1.. between the test-FF on tmp branches and the
actual fast forward.
While at it, updated the github API thing to *always* dump the JSON body
on an error response, if the content-type is json.
Previously, runbot_merge assumed github would return commits in
topological order (from base to head of PR). However as in the UI
github sorts commits using the author's date field, so depending on
rebasing/cherrypick/... it's possible to have the head of the commit
be "younger" than the rest. In that case robodoo will try to merge
it *first*, then attempt to merge the rest on top of it (-ish, it'd
probably make a hash of it if that worked), at which point github
replies with a 204 (nothing to merge) because the PR head has already
included everything which topologically precedes it.
Fix: re-sort commits topologically when fetching the PR's log. That
way they're rebased in the proper order and correctly linked to one
another.
Example problematic PR: odoo/enterprise#2794, the commits are
773aef03a59d50b33221d7cdcdf54cd0cbe0c914
author.date: 2018-10-01T14:58:38Z
879547c8dd37e7f413a97393a82f92377785b50b (parent: 773aef03)
author.date: 2018-10-01T12:02:08Z
Because 879547c8 is "older" than 773aef03, github returns it first,
both in the UI and via the API.
Also fixed up support for committer & author metadata in fake_github
so the local tests would both expose the issue properly and allow
fixing it.
* [ADD] runbot_merge: more informative states to stagings on error
Currently, when a staging fails for other reasons than a CI failure:
* the staging having been cancelled is known implicitly, because the
staging will be deactivated but will never get a status beyond
pending (because it's not found when looking for it since it's not
`active`)
* the fast-forward having failed is completely silent (logging aside),
it looks for all the world like the staging succeeded
Timeout fails the PR already, but split-on-timeout was not so fix that
one bit.
* [FIX] odoo/odoo#cb2862ad2a60ff4ce66c14e7af2548fdf6fc5961
Closes#41
The webhook used the "sender" of the event as comment author, however
if the comment is edited by a maintainer github sends a
"issue_comment" event with that maintainer as sender.
This means a random user could create a comment with a robodoo
command, and if a registered reviewer happened to edit the comment the
command would suddenly be taken in account. This was not the intention.
I just spent 10mn trying to find out why staging 28 was cancelled
(a p=0 comment). Add a common prefix to all staging cancels to make
them easier to find.
