Summary:
Ref T1049. Generally, it's useful to separate test/trial/manual runs from production/automatic runs.
For example, you don't want to email a bunch of people that the build is broken just because you messed something up when writing a new build plan. You'd rather try it first, then promote it into production once you have some good runs.
Similarly, test runs generally should not affect the outside world, etc. Finally, some build steps (like "wait for other buildables") may want to behave differently when run in production/automation than when run in a testing environment (where they should probably continue immediately).
So, formalize the distinction between automatic buildables (those created passively by the system in response to events) and manual buildables (those created explicitly by users). Add filtering, and stop the automated parts of the system from interacting with the manual parts (for example, we won't show manual results on revisions).
This also moves the "Apply Build Plan" to a third, new home: instead of the sidebar or Buildables, it's now on plans. I think this generally makes more sense given how things have developed. Broadly, this improves isolation of test environments.
Test Plan: Created some builds, browsed around, used filters, etc.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7824
Summary: We currently have a lot of calls to `addCrumb(id(new PhabricatorCrumbView())->...)` which can be expressed much more simply with a convenience method. Nearly all crumbs are only textual.
Test Plan:
- This was mostly automated, then I cleaned up a few unusual sites manually.
- Bunch of grep / randomly clicking around.
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: hach-que, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7787
Summary: This implements support for explicitly marking the sequence of build steps. Users can now drag and re-order build steps in plans, and artifact dependencies are re-calculated so that if you move "Run Command" before "Lease Host", the "Run Command" step has it's artifact setting cleared and thus the step becomes invalid.
Test Plan: Re-ordered build steps and observed dependencies being correctly recalculated.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7715
Summary: Currently the "Edit Build Plan" page crashes if there are any build steps with invalid implementations (because the implementation class has been removed or renamed). This updates the Edit Build Plan page so that steps with invalid implementations can be deleted.
Test Plan: Looked at a build plan with invalid configurations and deleted it's steps.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T4111, T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7708
Summary: This implements an interface for adding new build steps, editing existing build steps and deleting build steps from build plans. It uses the settings definitions on the build implementation to work out what fields should be displayed on the edit page.
Test Plan:
See screenshots:
{F78529}
{F78532}
{F78528}
{F78531}
{F78527}
{F78530}
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7500
Summary: This implements a basic Harbormaster daemon that takes pending builds and builds them (currently just sleeps 15 seconds before moving to passed state). It also implements an interface to apply a build plan to a buildable, so that users can kick off builds for a buildable.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/phd debug PhabricatorHarbormasterBuildDaemon` and used the interface to start some builds by applying a build plan. Observed them move from 'pending' to 'building' to 'passed'.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7498
Summary:
Ref T1049. I don't really want to sink too much time into this right now, but a seemingly reasonable architecture came to me in a dream. Here's a high-level overview of how things fit together:
- **"Build"**: In Harbormaster, "build" means any process we want to run against a working copy. It might actually be building an executable, but it might also be running lint, running unit tests, generating documentation, generating symbols, running a deploy, setting up a sandcastle, etc.
- `HarbormasterBuildable`: A "buildable" is some piece of code which build operations can run on. Generally, this is either a Differential diff or a Diffusion commit. The Buildable class just wraps those objects and provides a layer of abstraction. Currently, you can manually create a buildable from a commit. In the future, this will be done automatically.
- `HarbormasterBuildStep`: A "build step" is an individual build operation, like "run lint", "run unit", "build docs", etc. The step defines how to perform the operation (for example, "run unit tests by executing 'arc unit'"). In this diff, this barely exists.
- `HarbormasterBuildPlan`: This glues together build steps into groups or sequences. For example, you might want to "run unit", and then "deploy" if the tests pass. You can create a build plan which says "run step "unit tests", then run step "deploy" on success" or whatever. In the future, these will also contain triggers/conditions ("Automatically run this build plan against every commit") and probably be able to define failure actions ("If this plan fails, send someone an email"). Because build plans will run commands, only administrators can manage them.
- `HarbormasterBuild`: This is the concrete result of running a `BuildPlan` against a `Buildable`. It tracks the build status and collects results, so you can see if the build is running/successful/failed. A `Buildable` may have several `Build`s, because you can execute more than one `BuildPlan` against it. For example, you might have a "documentation" build plan which you run continuously against HEAD, but a "unit" build plan which you want to run against every commit.
- `HarbormasterBuildTarget`: This is the concrete result of running a `BuildStep` against a `Buildable`. These are children of `Build`. A step might be able to produce multiple targets, but generally this is something like "Unit Tests" or "Lint" and has an overall status, so you can see at a glance that unit tests were fine but lint had some issues.
- `HarbormasterBuildItem`: An optional subitem for a target. For lint, this might be an individual file. For unit tests, an individual test. For normal builds, an executable. For deploys, a server. For documentation generation, there might just not be subitems.
- `HarbormasterBuildLog`: Provides extra information, like command/execution transcripts. This is where stdout/stderr will get dumped, and general details and other messages.
- `HarbormasterBuildArtifact`: Stores side effects or results from build steps. For example, something which builds a binary might put the binary in "Files" and then put its PHID here. Unit tests might put coverage information here. Generally, any build step which produces some high-level output object can use this table to record its existence.
This diff implements almost nothing and does nothing useful, but puts most of these object relationships in place. The two major things you can't easily do with these objects are:
1) Run arbitrary cron jobs. Jenkins does this, but it feels tacked on and I don't know of anyone using it for that. We could create fake Buildables to get a similar effect, but if we need to do this I'd rather do it elsewhere in general. Build and cron/service/monitoring feel like pretty different problems to me.
2) Run parameterized/matrix steps (maybe?). Bamboo has this plan/stage/task/job breakdown where a build step can generate a zillion actual jobs, like "build client on x86", "build server on x86", "build client on ARM", "build server on ARM", etc. We can sort of do this by having a Step map to multiple Targets, but I haven't really thought about it too much and it may end up being not-great. I'd guess we have like an 80% chance of getting a clean implementation if/when we get there. I suspect no one actually needs this, or when they do they'll just implement a custom Step and it can be parameterized at that level. I'm not too worried about this overall.
The major difference between this and Jenkins/Bamboo/TravisCI is that all three of those are **plan-centric**: the primary object in the system is a build plan, and the dashboard shows you all your build plans and the current status. I don't think this is the right model. One disadvantage is that you basically end up with top-level messaging that says "Trunk is broken", not "Trunk was broken by commit af32f392f". Harbormaster is **buildable-centric**: the primary object in the system is stuff you can run build operations against (commits/branches/revisions), and actual build plans are secondary. The main view will be "recent commits on this branch, and whether they're good or not" -- which I think is what's most important in a larger/more complex product -- not the pass/fail status of all jobs. This also makes it easier and more natural to integrate with Differential and Diffusion, which both care about the overall status of the commit/revision, not the current status of jobs.
Test Plan: Poked around, but this doesn't really do anything yet.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: zeeg, chad, aran, seporaitis
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7368
