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: Instead of implementing the `getTypeConstant` method in all subclasses of `PhabricatorPHIDType`, provide a `final` implementation in the base class which uses reflection. See D9837 for a similar implementation.
Test Plan: Ran `arc unit`.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9985
Summary:
This uses an event listener to render the status of builds on their buildables. The revision and commit view now renders out the status of each of the builds.
Currently the revision controller has the results for the latest diff rendered out. We might want to show the status of previous diffs in the future, but for now I think the latest diff should do fine.
There's also a number of bug fixes in this diff, including a particularly nasty one where builds would have a build plan PHID generated for them, which resulted in handle lookups always returning invalid objects.
Test Plan: Ran builds against diffs and commits, saw them appear on the revision and commit view controllers.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7544
Summary:
Depends on D7519.
This implements support for build logs in Harbormaster. This includes support for appending to a log from the "Run Remote Command" build step.
It also adds the ability to cancel builds.
Currently the build view page doesn't update the logs live; I'm sure this can be achieved with Javelin, but I don't have enough experience with Javelin to actually make it poll from updates to content in the background.
{F79151}
{F79153}
{F79150}
{F79152}
Test Plan:
Tested this by setting up SSH on a Windows machine and using a Remote Command configured with:
```
C:\Windows\system32\cmd.exe /C cd C:\Build && mkdir Build_${timestamp} && cd Build_${timestamp} && git clone --recursive https://github.com/hach-que/Tychaia.git && cd Tychaia && Protobuild.exe && C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319\MSBuild.exe Tychaia.Windows.sln
```
and observed the output of the build stream from the Windows machine into Phabricator.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7521
Summary:
Depends on D7500.
This seemed like a pretty good idea once I thought of it. Instead of having some custom triggering logic instead Harbormaster, I figured it best to leverage all of Herald's power so that users can create rules to apply builds to commits and differential revisions. This gives the added advantage that they can trigger off builds for particular types of revisions and commits, which seems like it could be really useful (e.g. run extra tests against revisions that touch sensitive areas of the code).
Test Plan: Ran the usual daemons + the Harbormaster daemon. Pushed a commit to the repository and saw both the buildable and build get created when the commit worked picked it up. Submitted a diff and saw both the buildable and build get created when the Herald rules were evaluated for the diff.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran, hwinkel
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7501
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
