Summary:
Ref T13249. Ref T13258. In some cases, builds are not idempotent and should not be restarted casually.
If the scary part is at the very end (deploy / provision / whatever), it could be okay to restart them if they previously failed.
Also, make the "reasons why you can't restart" and "explanations of why you can't restart" logic a little more cohesive.
Test Plan:
- Tried to restart builds in various states (failed/not failed, restartable always/if failed/never, already restarted), got appropriate errors or restarts.
- (I'm not sure the "Autoplan" error is normally reachable, since you can't edit autoplans to configure things to let you try to restart them.)
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13258, T13249
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20252
Summary:
Ref T13258. Implements the "Restartable" behavior, to control whether a build may be restarted or not.
This is fairly straightforward because there are already other existing reasons that a build may not be able to be restarted.
Test Plan: Restarted a build. Marked it as not restartable, saw "Restart" action become disabled. Tried to restart it anyway, got a useful error message.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13258
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20230
Summary:
Ref T13258. Fixes T11415. This makes "Runnable" actually do something:
- With "Runnable" set to "If Editable" (default): to manually run, pause, resume, abort, or restart a build, you must normally be able to edit the associated build plan.
- If you toggle "Runnable" to "If Viewable", anyone who can view the build plan may take these actions.
This is pretty straightforward since T9614 already got us pretty close to this ruleset a while ago.
Test Plan:
- Created a Build Plan, set "Can Edit" to just me, toggled "Runnable" to "If Viewable"/"If Editable", tried to take actions as another user.
- With "If Editable", unable to run, pause, resume, abort, or restart as another user.
- With "If Viewable", those actions work.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13258, T11415
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20229
Summary: Ref T13258. This will support changing behaviors in "arc land".
Test Plan: Called "harbormaster.buildplan.search", saw behavior information in results.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13258
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20228
Summary:
Depends on D20219. Ref T13258. Ref T11415. Installs sometimes have long-running builds or unimportant builds which they may not want to hold up drafts, affect buildable status, or warn during `arc land`.
Some builds have side effects (like deployment or merging) and are not idempotent. They can cause problems if restarted.
In other cases, builds are isolated and idempotent and generally safe, and it's okay for marketing interns to restart them.
To address these cases, add "Behaviors" to Build Plans:
- Hold Drafts: Controls how the build affects revision promotion from "Draft".
- Warn on Land: Controls the "arc land" warning.
- Affects Buildable: Controls whether we care about this build when figuring out if a buildable passed or failed overall.
- Restartable: Controls whether this build may restart or not.
- Runnable: Allows you to weaken the requirements to run the build if you're confident it's safe to run it on arbitrary old versions of things.
NOTE: This only implements UI, none of these options actually do anything yet.
Test Plan:
Mostly poked around the UI. I'll actually implement these behaviors next, and vet them more thoroughly.
{F6244828}
{F6244830}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13258, T11415
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20220
Summary:
Depends on D20218. Ref T13258. It's somewhat cumbersome to get from build plans to related builds but this is a reasonable thing to want to do, so make it a little easier.
Also clean up / standardize / hint a few things a little better.
Test Plan: {F6244116}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13258
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20219
Summary: Depends on D20216. Ref T13258. Bland infrastructure update to prepare for bigger things.
Test Plan: Created and edited a build plan.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13258
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20217
Summary:
Depends on D19919. Ref T11351. This method appeared in D8802 (note that "get...Object" was renamed to "get...Transaction" there, so this method was actually "new" even though a method of the same name had existed before).
The goal at the time was to let Harbormaster post build results to Diffs and have them end up on Revisions, but this eventually got a better implementation (see below) where the Harbormaster-specific code can just specify a "publishable object" where build results should go.
The new `get...Object` semantics ultimately broke some stuff, and the actual implementation in Differential was removed in D10911, so this method hasn't really served a purpose since December 2014. I think that broke the Harbormaster thing by accident and we just lived with it for a bit, then Harbormaster got some more work and D17139 introduced "publishable" objects which was a better approach. This was later refined by D19281.
So: the original problem (sending build results to the right place) has a good solution now, this method hasn't done anything for 4 years, and it was probably a bad idea in the first place since it's pretty weird/surprising/fragile.
Note that `Comment` objects still have an unrelated method with the same name. In that case, the method ties the `Comment` storage object to the related `Transaction` storage object.
Test Plan: Grepped for `getApplicationTransactionObject`, verified that all remaining callsites are related to `Comment` objects.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19920
Summary:
Depends on D19918. Ref T11351. In D19918, I removed all calls to this method. Now, remove all implementations.
All of these implementations just `return $timeline`, only the three sites in D19918 did anything interesting.
Test Plan: Used `grep willRenderTimeline` to find callsites, found none.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19919
Summary:
Ref T13124. See PHI531. When a revision is updated, builds against the older diff tend to stop being relevant. Add an option to abort outstanding older builds automatically.
At least for now, I'm adding this as a build step instead of some kind of special checkbox. An alternate implementation would be some kind of "Edit Options" action on plans with a checkbox like `[X] When this build starts, abort older builds.`
I think adding it as a build step is a bit simpler, and likely to lead to greater consistency and flexibility down the road, make it easier to add options, etc., and since we don't really have any other current use cases for "a bunch of checkboxes". This might change eventually if we add a bunch of checkboxes for some other reason.
The actual step activates //before// the build queues, so it doesn't need to wait in queue before it can actually act. T13088 discusses some plans here if this sticks.
Test Plan:
- Created a "Sleep for 120 seconds" build plan and triggered it with Herald.
- Added an "Abort Older Builds" step.
- Updated a revision several times in a row, saw older builds abort.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13124
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19376
Summary: Noticed a couple of typos in the docs, and then things got out of hand.
Test Plan:
- Stared at the words until my eyes watered and the letters began to swim on the screen.
- Consulted a dictionary.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, yelirekim, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18693
Summary:
Ref T10537. More infrastructure:
- Put a `bin/nuance` in place with `bin/nuance import`. This has no useful behavior yet.
- Allow sources to be searched by substring. This supports `bin/nuance import --source whatever` so you don't have to dig up PHIDs.
Test Plan:
- Applied migrations.
- Ran `bin/nuance import --source ...` (no meaningful effect, but works fine).
- Searched for sources by substring in the UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10537
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15436
Summary:
Every caller returns `true`. This was added a long time ago for Projects, but projects are no longer subscribable.
I don't anticipate needing this in the future.
Test Plan: Grepped for this method.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15409
Summary: Ref T10457. This is mostly just for consitency, but I imagine it will make managing large/complex build processes easier, and if we support Herald rules it would eventually let you write "Build plan's tags include [whatever]" to apply behavior to a group of plans.
Test Plan: {F1133107}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10457
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15360
Summary: Ref T10457. Allow build plans to be queried by name.
Test Plan:
- Searched for plans by name.
- Renamed a plan, searched for new name.
{F1133085}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10457
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15359
Summary:
Ref T6183. Ref T10054. Historically, only members could watch projects because there were some weird special cases with policies. These policy issues have been resolved and Herald is generally powerful enough to do equivalent watches on most objects anyway.
Also puts a "Watch Project" button on the feed panel to make the behavior and meaning more obvious.
Test Plan:
- Watched a project I was not a member of.
- Clicked the feed watch/unwatch button.
{F1064909}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T6183, T10054
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15063
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: 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 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 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: Fixes T6693.
Test Plan:
Made a bunch of comments on a diff with differential, being sure to leave inlines here and there. This reproduced the issue in T6693. With this patch this issue no longer reproduces!
Successfully "showed older changes" in Maniphest too.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6693
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10931
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:
Ref T1191. Ref T6203. While generating expected schemata, I ran into these columns which seem to have sketchy nullability.
- Mark most of them for later resolution (T6203). They work fine today and don't need to block T1191. Changing them can break the application, so we can't autofix them.
- Forgive a couple of them that are sort-of reasonable or going to get wiped out.
Test Plan: Saw 94 remaining warnings.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: hach-que, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1191, T6203
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10593
Summary:
Ref T1191. Nothing too notable here:
- Allow a Lisk object to specify that there's no expectation that a table exists. We have one Harbormaster object and one Token object like this.
- Removed BuildPlanTransactionComment because it's currently unused.
Test Plan:
- Saw ~200 fewer warnings; just ~800 left.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1191
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10583
Summary:
Ref T1049. This uses tabs on build targets to hide the configuration details and variables by default, instead promoting the target name, it's status and a description of the build step. The description is a new field on each build step.
The primary advantage of having a description on build steps is that DevOps can configure appropriate description information (including any troubleshooting information for build failures) on build steps, and developers who have builds fail against their code review can then look at this information.
Test Plan: Viewed a build plan and saw the appropriate information.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10093
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: Ref T5655. Rename `PhabricatorPHIDType` subclasses for clarity (see discussion in D9839). I'm not too keen on some of the resulting class names, so feel free to suggest alternatives.
Test Plan: Ran unit tests.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T5655
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9986
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: Ref T3583. Use the same approach Harbormaster does to give panels cheap forms.
Test Plan:
{F149218}
{F149219}
{F149220}
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T3583
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8919
Summary: Throwing this up for testing, swapped out all icons in timeline for their font equivelants. Used better icons where I could as well. We should feel free to use more / be fun with the icons when possible since there is no penalty anymore.
Test Plan: I browsed many, not all, timelines in my sandbox and in IE8. Some of these were just swagged, but I'm expecting we'll do more SB testing before landing.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8827
Summary:
Without this, build steps that have no options (like "wait for previous commits") don't actually save, since the transaction array is empty.
This also generally nice and consistent.
Test Plan: Created a new "wait" step, viewed transaction log.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8791
Summary:
Ref T1049. Currently, the "add" dialog lets you select a build step type, but then immediately creates one. If you "cancel" from the edit screen, you end up with an empty (and almost certainly invalid) build step.
Instead, don't create the step until it's valid.
Test Plan: Add Step -> Pick Type -> Add Step -> Cancel no longer creates empty step.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8605
Summary: Ref T1049. Tweaks some of the UI and code to improve / clean it up a bit.
Test Plan: Ran build plans, browsed UI.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8603
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. Fixes T4602. Moves all the funky field stuff to CustomField. Uses ApplicationTransactions to apply and record edits.
This makes "artifact" fields a little less nice (but still perfectly usable). With D8599, I think they're reasonable overall. We can improve this in the future.
All other field types are better (e.g., fixes weird bugs with "bool", fixes lots of weird behavior around required fields), and this gives us access to many new field types.
Test Plan:
Made a bunch of step edits. Here's an example:
{F133694}
Note that:
- "Required" fields work correctly.
- the transaction record is shown at the bottom of the page.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4602, T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8600
Summary:
Ref T4379. I want project subscriptions to work like this (yell if this seems whacky, since it makes subscriptions mean somethign a little different for projects than they do for other objects):
- You can only subscribe to a project if you're a project member.
- When you're added as a member, you're added as a subscriber.
- When you're removed as a member, you're removed as a subscriber.
- While you're a member, you can optionally unsubscribe.
From a UI perspective:
- We don't show the subscriber list, since it's going to be some uninteresting subset of the member list.
- We don't show CC transactions in history, since they're an uninteresting near-approximation of the membership transactions.
- You only see the subscription controls if you're a member.
To do this, I've augmented `PhabricatorSubscribableInterface` with two new methods. It would be nice if we were on PHP 5.4+ and could just use traits for this, but we should get data about version usage before we think about this. For now, copy/paste the default implementations into every implementing class.
Then, I implemented the interface in `PhabricatorProject` but with alternate defaults.
Test Plan:
- Used the normal interaction on existing objects.
- This has no actual effect on projects, verified no subscription stuff mysteriously appeared.
- Hit the new error case by fiddling with the UI.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: chad, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T4379
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8165
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:
This adds LeaseHostBuildStepImplementation for getting leases on hosts in Drydock via Harbormaster. It stores the resulting lease in an artifact.
There is also a few bug fixes as well.
Test Plan: Created a build plan with a "Lease Host" build step. Ran the build plan and saw the build pass and the artifact in the database.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1049, T4111
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7706
Summary: This implements build targets as outlined in D7582. Build targets represent an instance of a build step particular to the build. Logs and artifacts have been adjusted to attach to build targets instead of build / build step pairs.
Test Plan: Ran builds and clicked around the interface. Everything seemed to work.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T4111, T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7703
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:
Depends on D7498.
This implements support for a "build step implementation". Build steps have an associated class name (which makes the class in PHP) and a details field, which is serialized JSON (same as PhabricatorRepository).
This also implements a SleepBuildStepImplementation which just pauses the build for a specified period of seconds.
Test Plan:
Inserted a build step with `insert into harbormaster_buildstep (phid, buildPlanPHID, className, details, dateCreated, dateModified) values ('', 'PHID-HMCP-zkh5w6czfbfpk2gxwdeo', 'SleepBuildStepImplementation', '{"seconds":5}', NOW(), NOW());` (adjusting the build plan PHID as appropriate).
Started the daemon and applied the build plan to a buildable, and saw the daemon take a 5 second delay after creating `SleepBuildStepImplementation`.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran, chad
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7499
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
