Summary:
Fix T9662.
Record who initiated the build, and allow this information as a parameter.
In this implementation, a 're-run' keeps the original initiator, which we maybe not desired?
Test Plan:
Make a HTTP step with initiator.phid, trigger manually, via HM, via ./bin/harbormaster build.
Look at requests made.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9662
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14380
Summary: Ref T9352. See D13635. Build targets can have variables already, but let builds have them too. This mostly enables future use cases (sub-builds, more sophisticated build triggers).
Test Plan: With a custom Herald rule + action like the one in T9352, updated a revision and saw it generate multiple builds with varying parameters.
Reviewers: chad, hach-que
Reviewed By: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T9352
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14222
Summary:
Ref T8095. Two general problems:
- I want Harbormaster to own all lint and unit test results.
- I don't want users to have to configure anything for `arc` to keep working automatically.
These are in conflict because generic lint/unit test ownership in Harbormaster requires that build targets exist which we can attach build results to. However, we can't currently create build targets on demand: Harbormaster assumes it is responsible for creating targets, then running code or making third-party service calls to actually run the builds.
I considered two broad approaches to let `arc` push results into Harbormaster without requiring administrators to configure some kind of "arc results" build plan:
# Add magic target PHIDs like `PHID-MAGIC-this-is-really-arc-unit`.
# Add new code to build real targets with real PHIDs.
(1) is probably a bit less work to get off the ground, but I think it's worse overall and very likely to create more problems in the long run. I particularly worry that it will lead to a small amount of special casing in a very large number of places, which seems more fragile.
(2) is more work upfront but I think does a better job of putting all the special casing in one place that we can, e.g., more reasonably unit test, and letting the rest of the code rarely/never care about this case since it's just dealing with normal plans/steps/targets as far as it can tell.
This diff introduces "autoplans", which are source templates for plans/steps. This let us "push" these targets into Harbormaster. Hypthetically, any process "like" arc can use autoplans to upload test/lint/etc results. In practice, probably only `arc` will ever use this, but I think it's still quite a bit cleaner than the alternative despite all the generality.
Workflow is basically:
- `arc` creates a diff.
- `arc` calls `harbormaster.queryautotargets`, passing the diff PHID and saying "I have some lint and unit results I want to stick on this thing".
- Harbormaster builds the plan, steps, and targets (if any of them don't already exist), and hands back the target PHIDs so `arc` has a completely standard-looking place to put results.
- `arc` uploads the test results to the right targets, as though Harbormaster had asked it to run unit/lint in the first place.
(This doesn't actually do any of that yet, just sets things up.)
I'll maybe doc turn that ^^^^^^ into a doc for posterity since I think it's hard to guess what an "autotarget" is, but I'm going to grab some lunch first.
Test Plan:
- Added unit tests to make sure we can build these things properly.
- Used `harbormaster.queryautotargets` to build autotargets for a bunch of diffs.
- Verified targets come up in "waiting for message" state.
- Verified plans and steps are not editable.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: hach-que, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T8095
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13345
