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
Summary: Fixes T7419. This doesn't really do anything, just adds documentation.
Test Plan:
- Read the documentation:
{F688899}
- Created a build plan which makes an HTTP request to `example.com` and waits for a result.
- Ran that build plan manually.
- Called `harbormaster.sendmessage` manually with the example lint/unit values to provide a result.
- Saw the results report correctly and the message ("fail") process as expected:
{F688902}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7419
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13789
Summary:
Ref T8095. When build results are reported for a target, allow them to include unit and lint results.
There is no real way to see this stuff in the UI yet, either in Harbormaster or Differential.
Test Plan: Manually called this method with some results, saw Harbormaster update appropriately.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T8095
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13380
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
Summary:
Ref T7803. Ref T5873. I want to drive Conduit through more shared infrastructure, but can't currently add parameters automatically.
Put a `getX()` around the `defineX()` methods so the parent can provide default behaviors.
Also like 60% of methods don't define any special error types; don't require them to implement this method. I want to move away from this in general.
Test Plan:
- Ran `arc unit --everything`.
- Called `conduit.query`.
- Browsed Conduit UI.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: hach-que, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5873, T7803
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12380
Summary: Ref T5655. Some discussion in D9839. Generally speaking, `Phabricator{$name}Application` is clearer than `PhabricatorApplication{$name}`.
Test Plan:
# Pinned and uninstalled some applications.
# Applied patch and performed migrations.
# Verified that the pinned applications were still pinned and that the uninstalled applications were still uninstalled.
# Performed a sanity check on the database contents.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: hach-que, epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T5655
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9982
Summary: Ref T5058. The use of "enum" is confusing; we mean "choose one of these specific string constants". Make this more clear.
Test Plan: Viewed each call from the web UI.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5058
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9127
Summary:
Ref T4809. Currently, buildables have a status field but nothing populates it. Populate it:
- When builds change state, update the Buildable state.
- Use the new Buildable state on the web UI.
- Return the new Buildable state from Conduit.
To make it easier to debug/test this:
- Provide `bin/harbormaster update Bxxx ...` to force foreground update of a Buildable.
Test Plan:
- Used `bin/harbormaster update Bxxx --force --trace` to update buildables.
- Looked at buidlable list, saw statuses reported properly.
- Used Conduit to read statuses.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4809
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8799
Summary:
Ref T4809. This one is more straightforward. A couple of tweaks:
- Remove the WAITING status, since nothing ever sets it and I suspect nothing ever will with the modern way artifacts work (maybe). At a minimum, it's confusing with the new Target status that's also called "WAITING" but means something different.
- Consolidate 17 copies of these status names into one method.
Test Plan: Ran some queries via Conduit, got reasonable looking results.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4809
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8795
Summary: Ref T4809. I need to sort out some of the "status" stuff we're doing before this is actually useful (there's no sensible "status" value to expose right now) but once that happens `arc` can query this to figure out whether it needs to warn the user about pending/failed builds.
Test Plan: Ran query with various different parameters.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4809
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8794
Summary:
This hooks up all the pieces of the build pipeline so `harbormaster.sendmessage` actually works. Particularly:
- Candidate build steps (i.e., those which interact with external systems) can now "Wait for Message". This pauses them indefinitely when they complete, until something calls `harbormaster.sendmessage`.
- After processing a target, we check if we should move it to PASSED or WAITING.
- Before updating a build, we move WAITING targets with pending messages to either PASSED or FAILED.
- I added an explicit "Building" state, which doesn't affect workflows but communicates more information to human users.
A big part of this is avoiding races. I believe we get the correct behavior no matter which order events occur in:
- We update builds after targets complete and after we receive messages, so we're guaranteed to update once both these conditions are true. This means messages can't be lost (even if they arrive before a build completes).
- The minor changes to the build engine logic mean that firing additional build updates is always safe, no matter what the current state of the build is.
- The build itself is protected by a lock in the build engine.
- The target is not covered by an explicit lock, but for all states only the engine (waiting) //or// the worker (all other states) can interact with it. All of the interactions also move the target state forward to the same destination and have no other side effects.
- Messages are only consumed inside the engine lock, so they don't need an explicit lock.
Test Plan:
- Made an HTTP request wait after completion, then ran a pile of builds through it using `bin/harbormaster build` and the web UI.
- Passed and failed message-awaiting builds with `harbormaster.sendmessage`.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley, zeeg
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8788
Summary:
Ref T1049. Allows external systems to send a message to a build target. The primary intended use case is:
- You make an HTTP request to Jenkins.
- The build goes into a "waiting" state.
- Later, Jenkins calls `harbormaster.sendmessage` to report that the target passed or failed.
- The build continues as appropriate.
This is deceptively complicated because:
- There are a lot of race concerns. We might get a message back from an external system before it even responds to the request we made. We want to make sure we process these messages no matter when we receive them.
- These messages need to be sent to a build target (vs a build or buildable) because we'll get into trouble with parallelization later on otherwise (Jenkins is told to do 3 builds; we can't tell which ones failed or what overall state is unless the message are sent to targets).
- I initially thought about implementing this as a separate "Wait for a response from an external system" build step. This gets a lot more complicated for users once we do parallelization, though. Particularly, in the case where you've told Jenkins to do 3 builds, the three "wait" steps need to know which target they're waiting for (and jenkins needs to know some unique identifier for each target). So this pretty much boils down to a more complicated, more error-prone version of using target PHIDs.
This makes the already-muddy Build UI a bit worse, but it needs a general clarity pass anyway (it's showing way too much uninteresting data, and should show a better summary of results instead).
Test Plan:
- This doesn't really do anything interesting yet.
- Used Conduit to send messages to build plans.
- Viewed the messages on the build screen.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8604
