Summary:
Ref T11887. This isn't a great fix but makes the method behave properly until I get around to a real fix.
In the longer term, I want to convert all of this pluggable Harbormaster/Drydock stuff (blueprints, artifacts, build plans) to use EditEngine + EditField instead of the weird mishmash of older/custom stuff it currently uses. However, this is a more involved project to execute and I'd like to be in that area of the codebase first so it gets adequate testing.
Until that happens, just put a reasonble-ish mechanism in place to let artifacts correct inbound types. This is the only artifact type and only parameter which needs casting.
Test Plan:
- Made a `curl` call to `harbormaster.createartifact` to create a URI artifact with `?...&ui.external=1`.
- Before patch: type error on `ui.external` not being a boolean.
- After patch: artifact created successfully.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T11887
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16887
Summary:
Ref T9252. Currently, Harbormaster and Drydock work like this in some cases:
# Queue a lease for activation.
# Then, a little later, save the lease PHID somewhere.
# When the target/resource is destroyed, destroy the lease.
However, something can happen between (1) and (2). In Drydock this window is very short and the "something" would have to be a lighting strike or something similar, but in Harbormaster we wait until the resource activates to do (2) so the window can be many minutes long. In particular, a user can use "Abort Build" during those many minutes.
If they do, the target is destroyed but it doesn't yet have a record of the artifact, so the artifact isn't cleaned up.
Make these things work like this instead:
# Create a new lease and pre-generate a PHID for it.
# Save that PHID as something that needs to be cleaned up.
# Queue the lease for activation.
# When the target/resource is destroyed, destroy the lease if it exists.
This makes sure there's no step in the process where we might lose track of a lease/resource.
Also, clean up and standardize some other stuff I hit.
Test Plan:
- Stopped daemons.
- Restarted a build in Harbormaster.
- Stepped through the build one stage at a time using `bin/worker execute ...`.
- After the lease was queued, but before it activated, aborted the build.
- Processed the Harbormaster side of things only.
- Saw the lease get destroyed properly.
Reviewers: chad, hach-que
Reviewed By: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14234
Summary: Ref T9494. Depends on D14216. Remove 10 copies of this code.
Test Plan: Ran `arc unit --everything`, browsed Config > Modules, clicked around Herald / etc.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9494
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14217
Summary: Ref T9252. This is still crude in a few ways but basically works, at least for commits.
Test Plan:
- Made a build plan with just this build step.
- Ran `bin/harbormaster build --plan 10 ...` on a commit.
- It actually built a working copy, leased it, took no action, and released the lease. MAGIC~~~
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14160
Summary:
Ref T9252. Broadly, Drydock currently races on releasing objects from the "active" state. To reproduce this:
- Scatter some sleep()s pretty much anywhere in the release code.
- Release several times from web UI or CLI in quick succession.
Resources or leases will execute some release code twice or otherwise do inconsistent things.
(I didn't chase down a detailed reproduction scenario for this since inspection of the code makes it clear that there are no meaningful locks or mechanisms preventing this.)
Instead, add a Harbormaster-style command queue to resources and leases. When something wants to do a release, it adds a command to the queue and schedules a worker. The workers acquire a lock, then try to consume commands from the queue.
This guarantees that only one process is responsible for writes to active resource/leases.
This is the last major step to giving resources and leases a single writer during all states:
- Resource, Unsaved: AllocatorWorker
- Resource, Pending: ResourceWorker (Possible rename to "Allocated?")
- Resource, Open: This diff, ResourceUpdateWorker. (Likely rename to "Active").
- Resource, Closed/Broken: Future destruction worker. (Likely rename to "Released" / "Broken"; maybe remove "Broken").
- Resource, Destroyed: No writes.
- Lease, Unsaved: Whatever wants the lease.
- Lease, Pending: AllocatorWorker
- Lease, Acquired: LeaseWorker
- Lease, Active: This diff, LeaseUpdateWorker.
- Lease, Released/Broken: Future destruction worker (Maybe remove "Broken"?)
- Lease, Expired: No writes. (Likely rename to "Destroyed").
In most phases, we can already guarantee that there is a single writer without doing any extra work. This is more complicated in the "Active" case because the release buttons on the web UI, the release tools on the CLI, the lease requestor itself, the garbage collector, and any other release process cleaning up related objects may try to effect a release. All of these could race one another (and, in many cases, race other processes from other phases because all of these get to act immediately) as this code is currently written. Using a queue here lets us make sure there's only a single writer in this phase.
One thing which is notable is that whatever acquires a lease **can not write to it**! It is never the writer once it queues the lease for activation. It can not write to any resources, either. And, likewise, Blueprints can not write to resources while acquiring or releasing leases.
We may need to provide a mechinism so that blueprints and/or resource/lease holders get to attach some storage to resources/leases for bookkeeping. For example, a blueprint might need to keep some kind of cache on a resource to help it manage state. But I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it, and nothing else would need to write to this storage so it's technically straightforward to introduce such a mechanism if we need one.
Test Plan:
- Viewed buttons in web UI, checked enabled/disabled states.
- Clicked the buttons.
- Saw commands show up in the command queue.
- Saw some daemon stuff get scheduled.
- Ran CLI tools, saw commands get consumed and resources/leases release.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14143
Summary: Fixes T8659. This isn't //explicitly// documented but I'm going to wait for a bit until the "Harbormaster" doc splits into internal/external builds to add docs for it. There's other similar stuff coming soon anyway.
Test Plan:
{F716439}
{F716440}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8659
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13903
Summary:
Ref T8659. In the general case, this eventually allows build processes to do things like:
- Upload build results (like a ".app" or ".exe" or other binary).
- Pass complex results between build steps (e.g., build step A does something hard and build step B uses it to do something else).
Today, we're a long way away from having the infrastructure for that. However, it is useful to let third party build processes (like Jenkins) upload URIs that link back to the external build results.
This adds `harbormaster.createartifact` so they can do that. The only useful thing to do with this method today is have your Jenkins build do this:
params = array(
"uri": "https://jenkins.mycompany.com/build/23923/details/",
"name": "View Build Results in Jenkins",
"ui.external": true,
);
harbormaster.createartifact(target, 'uri', params);
Then (after the next diff) we'll show a link in Differential and a prominent link in Harbormaster. I didn't actually do the UI stuff in this diff since it's already pretty big.
This change moves a lot of code around, too:
- Adds PHIDs to artifacts.
- It modularizes build artifact types (currently "file", "host" and "URI").
- It formalizes build artifact parameters and construction:
- This lets me generate usable documentation about how to create artifacts.
- This prevents users from doing dangerous or policy-violating things.
- It does some other general modernization.
Test Plan:
{F715633}
{F715634}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8659
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13900
