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
Summary: Ref T603. This swaps almost all queries against the repository table over to be policy aware.
Test Plan:
- Made an audit comment on a commit.
- Ran `save_lint.php`.
- Looked up a commit with `diffusion.getcommits`.
- Looked up lint messages with `diffusion.getlintmessages`.
- Clicked an external/submodule in Diffusion.
- Viewed main lint and repository lint in Diffusion.
- Completed and validated Owners paths in Owners.
- Executed dry runs via Herald.
- Queried for package owners with `owners.query`.
- Viewed Owners package.
- Edited Owners package.
- Viewed Owners package list.
- Executed `repository.query`.
- Viewed "Repository" tool repository list.
- Edited Arcanist project.
- Hit "Delete" on repository (this just tells you to use the CLI).
- Created a repository.
- Edited a repository.
- Ran `bin/repository list`.
- Ran `bin/search index rGTESTff45d13dffcfb3ea85b03aac8cc36251cacdf01c`
- Pushed and parsed a commit.
- Skipped all the Drydock stuff, as it it's hard to test and isn't normally reachable.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7132
Summary:
This is very preliminary and doesn't actually do anything useful. In theory, it uses Drydock to check out a working copy and run tests. In practice, it's not actually capable of running any of our tests (because of complicated interdependency stuff), but does check out a working copy and //try// to run tests there.
Adds various sorts of utility methods to various things as well.
Test Plan: Ran `reparse.php --harbormaster --trace <commit>`, observed attempt to run tests via Drydock.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2015, T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D4215
Summary:
This commit doesn't change license of any file. It just makes the license implicit (inherited from LICENSE file in the root directory).
We are removing the headers for these reasons:
- It wastes space in editors, less code is visible in editor upon opening a file.
- It brings noise to diff of the first change of any file every year.
- It confuses Git file copy detection when creating small files.
- We don't have an explicit license header in other files (JS, CSS, images, documentation).
- Using license header in every file is not obligatory: http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new.
This change is approved by Alma Chao (Lead Open Source and IP Counsel at Facebook).
Test Plan: Verified that the license survived only in LICENSE file and that it didn't modify externals.
Reviewers: epriestley, davidrecordon
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: aran, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T2035
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D3886
Summary:
A later diff adds unit tests against edges, but we need real objects to connect with edges. Add some trivial objects to the Harbormaster database to compliment the similar HarbormasterScratchTable.
On its own, this does nothing interesting.
Test Plan: Built unit tests on this in a followup.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1162
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D2937
Summary:
- `kill_init.php` said "Moving 1000 files" - I hope that this is not some limit in `FileFinder`.
- [src/infrastructure/celerity] `git mv utils.php map.php; git mv api/utils.php api.php`
- Comment `phutil_libraries` in `.arcconfig` and run `arc liberate`.
NOTE: `arc diff` timed out so I'm pushing it without review.
Test Plan:
/D1234
Browsed around, especially in `applications/repository/worker/commitchangeparser` and `applications/` in general.
Auditors: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1103
Summary:
- We currently write every PHID we generate to a table. This was motivated by two concerns:
- **Understanding Data**: At Facebook, the data was sometimes kind of a mess. You could look at a random user in the ID tool and see 9000 assocs with random binary data attached to them, pointing at a zillion other objects with no idea how any of it got there. I originally created this table to have a canonical source of truth about PHID basics, at least. In practice, our data model has been really tidy and consistent, and we don't use any of the auxiliary data in this table (or even write it). The handle abstraction is powerful and covers essentially all of the useful data in the app, and we have human-readable types in the keys. So I don't think we have a real need here, and this table isn't serving it if we do.
- **Uniqueness**: With a unique key, we can be sure they're unique, even if we get astronomically unlucky and get a collision. But every table we use them in has a unique key anyway. So we actually get pretty much nothing here, except maybe some vague guarantee that we won't reallocate a key later if the original object is deleted. But it's hard to imagine any install will ever have a collision, given that the key space is 36^20 per object type.
- We also currently use PHIDs and Users in tests sometimes. This is silly and can break (see D2461).
- Drop the PHID database.
- Introduce a "Harbormaster" database (the eventual CI tool, after Drydock).
- Add a scratch table to the Harbormaster database for doing unit test meta-tests.
- Now, PHID generation does no writes, and unit tests are isolated from the application.
- @csilvers: This should slightly improve the performance of the large query-bound tail in D2457.
Test Plan: Ran unit tests. Ran storage upgrade.
Reviewers: btrahan, vrana, jungejason
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: csilvers, aran, nh, edward
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D2466
