Remove original-signed-off-by, doesn't actually seem useful given the
semantics of signed-off-by according to the kernel doc'. Plus it
didn't actually work as the intent was to keep the signoff of the
original PR in the forward-port, but that signoff is not part of the
commit we're cherrypicking (it gets added on the fly when the commit
is merged).
Therefore explicitly get the ack-chain into the PR: when merging an FP
PR, try to integrate the signoff of the original PR, that of the final
FP pr, and while at it that of the last explicit update in the commit
chain (e.g. in case there's been a conflict or something).
Fixes#284
* only provide fields which make sense for the mergebot
* provide formatting & searchability for review rights records so
they're visible from the list directly
This is more of a sanity check as it normally should not be a factor:
labels generally contain the target name, and staging checks are
performed per-target so we're not mixing multiple targets anyway.
But let's say a third-party creates a fix-foo branch for A and a
fix-foo branch for B, we want to ensure they're not considered batched
together.
Rather than try to fix up various bits where we search & all and
wonder what index we should be using, make the column a CIText.
For mergebot the main use case would be properly handling
delegate=XXX: currently if XXX is not a case-sensitive match we're
going to create a new partner with the new github login and
give *them* delegation, and the intended target of the delegation
isn't going to work correctly.
Also try to install the citext extension if it's not in the database,
and run the database-creation process with `check=True` so if that
fails we properly bubble up the error and don't try to run tests on a
corrupted / broken DB.
Fixes#318
As the odds of having more projects or more repos with different
requirements in the same project, the need to have different sets of
reviewers for different repositories increases.
As a result, rather than be trivial boolean flags the review info
should probably depend on the user / partner and the repo. Turns out
the permission checks had already been extracted into their own
function so most of the mess comes from testing utilities which went
and configured their review rights as needed.
Incidentally it might be that the test suite could just use something
like a sequence of commoditized accounts which get configured as
needed and not even looked at unless they're used.
Before this change, `r-` on a pr[p=0] does essentially nothing. At
most it will unstage if the PR had been (somewhat unnecessarily) r+'d
in the past but then the PR will get re-staged immediately.
To avoid this odd behaviour, if r- is sent to a p=0 PR not only is
the PR unreviewed (if it was reviewed) it always gets unstaged, and
its priority gets reset to 1 (high priority but doesn't bypass CI and
review). Also send a comment on that subject so followers of the pr
are notified.
Fixes#313
During freezes it can be useful to notify viewers that nothing is
going to forward port or merge for a while, and that this is
intentional (not something that's broken).
Fixes#307
The staging cron was already essentially split between "check if one
of the stagings is successful (and merge it)" and "check if we should
create a staging" as these were two separate loops in the cron.
But it might be useful to disable these two operations separately
e.g. we might want to stop the creation of new staging but let the
existing stagings complete.
The actual splitting is easy but it turns out a bunch of tests were
"optimised" to only run the merge cron. Most of them didn't blow up
but it seems more prudent to fix them all.
fixesodoo/runbot#310
The PR creation had been fixed to always validate even without a
commit found (in case there was no need for a commit), but the update
of a PR in such a situation was not tested, and thus naturally did not
work because why would it work if it wasn't tested?
Also remove the conditional skip on updating a PR to a new head.
The test was checking things would work properly with
required_statuses being an empty string, because I'd also forgotten an
empty field becomes stored as `False` in the database, so trying
things out live neither the PRs nor the staging would work as their
assumption that they could straight split the required_statuses would
always fail.
Update the test to better match expectations, and hopefully this is
the end of that saga.
PRs transitioning to 'ready' had been checked and tested but turns out
I had completely forgotten to test that stagings would validate
properly therefore of course they didn't.
The issue here was I'd forgotten `''.split(',')` returns `['']` rather
than `[]`, so on an empty required_statuses the staging validator
would keep looking for a status matching the context `''` and would
never find it, keeping the staging pending until timeout. So most
likely the problem could have been resolved by just adding a condition
to
[r.strip() for r in repomap[c.sha].required_statuses.split(',')]
but I'd already done all the rest of the reorganisation by that point,
test pass and I think it's a somewhat better logic. Therefore I'll go
with that for now.
* properly handle empty required_statuses during staging validation
* remove the final postcondition, if we're missing commits which don't
require any statuse we should not care
* expand test to include up to merging PRs
* automatically create dummy commits when creating stagings, that way
the relevant commits are in the database (can't hurt)
PS: an other alternative would have been to filter out or skip ahead
on commits which don't require any statuses aka cmap &
required_statuse / cmap would not even have that entry
Refactor the selection thingie, hopefully in a way which doesn't
absolutely crater performances, so that it's possible to explain the
reason why a PR is considered blocked.
Despite the existing dedup' sometimes the "xxx failed on this
forward-port PR" would still get multiplicated due to split builds
e.g. in odoo/odoo#43935 4 such messages appear within ~5 minutes, then
one more 10mn later.
This is despite all of them having the same "build" (target_url) and
status (failure). Since the description is the only thing that's not
logged I assume that's the field which varies and makes the dedup'
fail. Therefore:
* add the description to the logging (when getting a status ping)
* exclude the description when checking if a new status should be
taken in account or ignored: the build (and thus url) should change
on rebuild
Hopefully fixes#281
A while back I implemented name_get/display_name to print PRs using
the canonical github format (owner/repo#number), however looks like
some of the logging calls were still using bespoke formatting.
Moving statuses from project to repo was originally developed on 11,
but since the PR was only merged after the 13.0 update, the script
migration script should be moved to match.
The pytest suite had been partially unified between mergebot and
forwardport but because of session-scoped modules it could not run
across those.
Make the db cache lazy and able to cache multiple databases, and move
the "current required module" to function scoped, this way things
should (and seem to) work properly on runs involving mergebot & fwbot.
Next step: xdist! (need to randomise repo names for that, probably).
When an employee sadly leaves Odoo,
the Odoo production database (odoo.com) will call these routes
in order to remove the reviewer rights automatically.
So a user who no longer works for Odoo can't "r+" Github PRs.
This is related to odoo/internal#617
Pages take over from redirections which really is a pain in the ass
when trying to find out why the bloody redirection seemingly refuses
to work.
Note: can't use the record tag because homepage_page is marked as
noupdate, so we have to bypass the flag checking.
Interaction of CacheMiss and BaseModel is fucked, leading to an
infinite loop when trying to provide useful __str__ on a model (by
accessing model fields).
bs4 yields complete vomit on the template as-is (see:
https://imgur.com/a/XIMn7MX).
Add a bunch of color and styling overrides to get something closer to
the original, and move the existing styles to a "proper" scss file
while at it.
Using `modified` seems safer than just blowing the cache with respect
to stored computed fields depending on PR state (not sure there are
any but it's likely).
Previous version incorrectly browsed the PR *number* (rather than ID)
so at best it would do nothing and at worst it might go and notify the
wrong PR entirely.
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
