Summary: Ref T5655. Some discussion in D9839. Generally speaking, `Phabricator{$name}Application` is clearer than `PhabricatorApplication{$name}`.
Test Plan:
# Pinned and uninstalled some applications.
# Applied patch and performed migrations.
# Verified that the pinned applications were still pinned and that the uninstalled applications were still uninstalled.
# Performed a sanity check on the database contents.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: hach-que, epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T5655
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9982
Summary:
For Harbormaster tasks which want to poll or wait, this lets them say "try again a little later" without having to sleep and hold a queue slot.
This is basically the same as failing, except that we don't increment the failure counter. Instead, we just set the current lease to the correct length and then exit. The task will be retried after the lease expires.
Test Plan: Using both `bin/harbormaster` and `phd debug taskmaster`, ran a lot of waiting tasks through the queue, faking them to either yield or not yield in a controlled manner. The queue responded as expected, yielding tasks appropraitely and retrying them later.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8792
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. Currently you can cancel a build, but now that we're tracking a lot more state we can stop, resume, and restart builds.
When the user issues a command against a build, I'm writing it into an auxiliary queue (`HarbormasterBuildCommand`) and then reading them out in the worker. This is mostly to avoid race messes where we try to `save()` the object in multiple places: basically, the BuildEngine is the //only// thing that writes to Build objects, and it holds a lock while it does it.
Test Plan:
- Created a plan which runs "sleep 2" a bunch of times in a row.
- Stopped, resumed, and restarted it.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran, chad
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7892
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: 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
