Summary: Ref T13088. Build Plans currently have a "Created" date in the right-hand "Curtain" UI, but this is unusual and the creation date is evident from the timeline. It's also not obvious why anyone would care. Remove it for simplicity/consistency. I think this may have just been a placeholder during initial implementation.
Test Plan: Viewed a build plan, no more "Created" element.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13088
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20216
Summary:
Fixes T13145. The list controllers properly support public access already, but some of the view/detail controllers did not.
Allow logged-out users to browse builds, buildables, plans, etc., provided they can see the corresponding objects.
Test Plan: As a logged-out user, browsed around builds, build plans, logs, etc., without hitting any login pages.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13145
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19459
Summary: Updates the Harbormaster UI to match the new two column everywhere else.
Test Plan: Did best I could, tested builds, plans, steps, buildables. Unable to test lint/unit locally, I need to set that up. Kick the tires for me pls. :3
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15523
Summary: Fixes T10458. These steps are obsolete and have not worked since the last updates to Drydock. They may eventually return in some form, but get rid of them for now since they're confusing.
Test Plan:
- Created a build plan with these steps.
- Removed these steps.
- Verified the build plan showed that the steps were invalid, and that I could delete them.
- Deleted them.
- Added new steps, no obsolete steps were available for selection.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10458
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15352
Summary: Mostly for consistency, we're not using other forms of icons and this makes all classes that use an icon call it in the same way.
Test Plan: tested uiexamples, lots of other random pages.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15125
Summary:
Ref T10004. After D14804, we get this behavior by default and no longer need to set it explicitly.
(If some endpoint did eventually need to set it explicitly, it could just change what it passes to `setHref()`, but I believe we currently have no such endpoints and do not foresee ever having any.)
Test Plan:
- As a logged out user, clicked various links in Differential, Maniphest, Files, etc., always got redirected to a sensible place after login.
- Grepped for `setObjectURI()`, `getObjectURI()` (there are a few remaining callsites, but to a different method with the same name in Doorkeeper).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T10004
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14805
Summary:
Fixes T9519. Right now, build steps go straight from the build to the edit screen.
This means that there's no way to see their edit history or review details without edit permission. In particular, this makes it a bit harder to catch the Drydock Blueprint authorization warnings from T9519.
- Add a standard view screen.
- Add a little warning callout to blueprint authorizations.
This also does a bit of a touchup on the weird dropshadow element from T9586. Maybe not totally design-approved now but it's less ugly, at least.
Test Plan:
{F906695}
{F906696}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9519
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14330
Summary:
Ref T9614. Currently, a lot of Build Plan behavior is covered by a global "can manage" policy.
One install in particular is experiencing difficulty with warring factions within engineering aborting one another's builds.
As a first step to remedy this, and also generally make Harbormaster more flexible and bring it in line with other applications in terms of policy power:
- Give Build Plans normal view/edit policies.
- Require "Can Edit" to run a plan manually.
Having "Can View" on plans may be a little weird in some cases (the status of a Buildable might be bad because of a build you can't see) but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
Next change here will require "Can Edit" to abort a build. This will reasonably allow installs to reserve pause/abort for administrators/adults. (I might let anyone restart a plan, though?)
Test Plan:
- Created a new build plan.
- Verified defaults were inherited from application defaults (swapped them around, too).
- Saved build plan.
- Edited policies.
- Verified autoplans get the right policies.
- Verified old plans got migrated properly.
- Tried to run a plan I couldn't edit (denied).
- Ran a plan from CLI with `bin/harbormaster`.
- Tried to create a plan with an unprivileged user.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9614
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14321
Summary: Updates Harbormaster for handleRequest over processRequest
Test Plan: Went through various Harbormaster areas, buildables, actions.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14255
Summary: Ref T8096. Like stop/start, autoplans are pushed into the system from outside (normally by `arc`) so it doesn't make any sense to run them manually.
Test Plan:
- Tried to run an autoplan from web UI, got an error.
- Ran a normal plan from web UI.
- Tried to run an autoplan from CLI, got an error.
- Ran a noraml plan from CLI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8096
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13844
Summary:
Ref T8089. We have a lot of broken/confusing/prototype build steps that I want to hide from users when we unprototype Harbormaster.
The dialog is also just kind of unwieldy.
Organize this UI a little better and put all the sketchy junk in a "prototypes" group that you can't see unless prototypes are enabled.
This doesn't break anything (the old steps will still work fine), but should reduce user confusion.
Test Plan:
Old UI:
{F691439}
New UI (prototypes off):
{F691440}
New UI (prototypes on):
{F691441}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8089
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13803
Summary:
Ref T8095. This is just general groundwork for more exciting changes:
- Use more modern conventions around controllers, UI elements, and dialogs.
- Provide real CAN_EDIT policies and policy checks (they just don't do anything yet).
Test Plan:
- Used all affected controllers.
- Faked CAN_EDIT to POLICY_NOONE and verified everything was greyed out and unselectable.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T8095
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13344
Summary: Ref T8096. This shows the build plan name on the Harbormaster build plan view controller. Without this, the name is not displayed anywhere on the page when you're viewing a build plan's configuration (which makes things confusing if you're updating a bunch of build plans at once).
Test Plan: Viewed a build plan, saw the build plan name on the page.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Projects: #harbormaster
Maniphest Tasks: T8096
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13356
Summary: Ref T8099, adds StatusIcons in place of barColor. May need to revisit icons. Also fixed incorrect icons used in Drydock.
Test Plan: Visit Harbormaster, Drydock, see proper icons.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T8099
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13054
Summary:
Ref T4712. Specifically...
- Differential
- needed getApplicationTransactionViewObject() implemented
- Audit
- needed getApplicationTransactionViewObject() implemented
- Repository
- one object needed PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface implemented
- setShouldTerminate(true)
- Ponder
- BONUS BUG FIX - leaving a comment on an answer had a bad redirect URI
- both PonderQuestion and PonderAnswer needed PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface implemented
- setShouldTerminate(true) on both "history" controllers
- left a "TODO" on buildAnswers on the question view controller, which is non-standard and should be re-written eventually
- Phortune
- BONUS BUG FIX - fix new user "createNewAccount" code to not fatal
- PhortuneAccount, PhortuneMerchant, and PhortuneCart needed PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface implemented
- setShouldTerminate(true) on Account view, merchant view, and cart view controller
- Fund
- Legalpad
- Nuance
- NuanceSource needed PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface implemented
- Releeph (this product is kind of a mess...)
- HACKQUEST - had to manually create an arcanist project to even be able to make a "product" and get started...!
- BONUS BUG FIX - make sure to "setName" on product edit
- ReleephProject (should be ReleepProduct...?), ReleephBranch, and ReleepRequest needed PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface implemented
- Harbormaster
- HarbormasterBuildable, HarbormasterBuild, HarbormasterBuildPlan, and HarbormasterBuildStep all needed PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface implemented
- setShouldTerminate(true) all over the place
Test Plan: foreach application, viewed the timeline(s) and made sure they still rendered
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4712
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10925
Summary: This makes input artifacts imply the appropriate build step dependencies in the build plan. That is, if you use a host artifact in a build step, it will then implicitly depend on the 'Lease Host' step.
Test Plan: Viewed the build plan with the artifacts, saw the dependencies. Ran a build, saw everything execute in the correct order.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10089
Summary:
Depends on D9806. This implements the build simulator, which is used to calculate the order of build steps in the plan editor. This includes a migration script to convert existing plans from sequential based to dependency based, and then drops the sequence column.
Because build plans are now dependency based, the grippable and re-order behaviour has been removed.
Test Plan: Tested the migration, saw the dependencies appear correctly.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9847
Summary: I'm pretty sure that `@group` annotations are useless now... see D9855. Also fixed various other minor issues.
Test Plan: Eye-ball it.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley, chad
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9859
Summary: Ref T1049. This provides a user-configurable name field on build steps, which allows users to uniquely identify their steps. The intention is that this field will be used in D9806 to better identify the dependencies (rather than showing an unhelpful PHID).
Test Plan: Set the name of some build steps, saw it appear in the correct places.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9816
Summary: Ran `arc lint --apply-patches --everything` over rP, mainly to change double quotes to single quotes where appropriate. These changes also validate that the `ArcanistXHPASTLinter::LINT_DOUBLE_QUOTE` rule is working as expected.
Test Plan: Eyeballed it.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9431
Summary: Changes to using FontAwesome
Test Plan:
Testing UIExamples and each of the pages (except releelph)
{F155942}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9157
Summary: The removes the sprite sheet 'icons' and replaces it with FontAwesome fonts.
Test Plan:
- Grep for SPRITE_ICONS and replace
- Grep for sprite-icons and replace
- Grep for PhabricatorActionList and choose all new icons
- Grep for Crumbs and fix icons
- Test/Replace PHUIList Icon support
- Test/Replace ObjectList Icon support (foot, epoch, etc)
- Browse as many pages as I could get to
- Remove sprite-icons and move remarkup to own sheet
- Review this diff in Differential
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9052
Summary: Ref T1049. D8588 already required custom code to change what it extends, so this is as good a time as we're going to get to move to more standard class name.
Test Plan: `arc liberate`; `arc lint`
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8601
Summary:
Ref T1049. In Harbormaster, build steps may have various inputs (like a host they should run on) and outputs (like a reference to an uploaded file).
- Currently, inputs aren't defined anywhere (except implicitly at runtime).
- Instead, define inputs explicitly.
- Currently, outputs are defined in a way that loses information when misconfigured (the keys will collide).
- Instead, define inputs and outputs so they work whether a step is configured correctly or not.
- Currently, there's no simple way to see a step's inputs and outputs.
- Add some UI for this.
- Currently, reordering steps has some surprising side effects.
- Instead of invalidating steps after reordering them, validate them at display time and warn the user.
Test Plan:
{F133679}
{F133680}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley, chad
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8599
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
