Summary: We often just setError as an array even if it's only one error. This just makes the UI a little cleaner in these cases.
Test Plan: Remove all reviewers from a diff, see status error without list styling.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14308
Summary:
Basically similar to D13941 but a little more extreme:
- Really strongly emphasize reproducibility for bug reports, and set users up for rejection if they don't satisfy this.
- Really strongly emphasize problem descriptions for feature requests, and set users up for rejection.
- Get rid of various "please give us feedback"; we get plenty of feedback these days.
- Some modernization tweaks.
- Split the support document into:
- Stuff we actually support for free (security / good bug reports / feature requests).
- Stuff you can pay us for (hosting / consulting / prioritization).
- A nebulous "community" section, with appropriate (low) expectations that better reflects reality.
My overall goals here are:
- Set expectations better, so users don't show up in IRC expecting it to be a "great place to get amazing support" or whatever the docs said in 2011.
- Possibly move the needle slightly on bug reports / feature request quality, maybe.
Test Plan: Read changes carefully.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14305
Summary:
I'm going to do some version of D13941. Clean up extra links to the old document first.
These were just randomly links from various places that we no longer really want feedback on and/or are now better covered by other documents.
Test Plan:
- `grep`
- Reviewed Config/Welcome screen.
- Reviewed `uri.allowed-editor-protocols`.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14303
Summary: Make Workboard initialization more restrictive.
Test Plan: Log out, see "No Workboard", Log in with permissions, see "New Workboard", Log in with notchad, see "No Workboard".
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T7410
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14306
Summary: Right now logged out users can enable a workboard on a project.
Test Plan: Log out, view a public project, click on Workboard, get not set up dialog. Click Cancel, return to project details.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14304
Summary:
Fixes T9599. When APC/APCu are not available, we fall back to a disk-based cache.
We try to share this cache across webserver processes like APC/APCu would be shared in order to improve performance, but are just kind of guessing how to coordinate it. From T9599, it sounds like we don't always get this right in every configuration.
Since this is complicated and error prone, just stop trying to do this. This cache has bad performance anyway (no production install should be using it), and we have much better APC/APCu setup instructions now than we did when I wrote this. Just using the PID is simpler and more correct.
Test Plan:
- Artificially disabled APC.
- Reloaded the page, saw all the setup stuff run.
- Reloaded the page, saw no setup stuff run (i.e., cache was hit).
- Restarted the webserver.
- Reloaded the page, saw all the setup stuff run.
- Reloaded again, got a cache hit.
I don't really know how to reproduce the exact problem with the parent PID not working, but from T9599 it sounds like this fixed the issue and from my test plan we still appear to get correct behavior in the standard/common case.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9599
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14302
Summary: Ref T8628. Updates Conduit for handleRequest
Test Plan: Use Conduit, test list, method calls, try a query, post this diff.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T8628
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14265
Summary:
Fixes T9596.
Was unable to navigate to a task in Maniphest.
Test Plan: navigate to that task.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley, avivey, tycho.tatitscheff
Reviewed By: avivey, tycho.tatitscheff
Subscribers: tycho.tatitscheff, avivey, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9596
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14300
Summary: Fixes T9592.
Test Plan: Log out ! Navigates to a task. See the add button grey-ed out !
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9592
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14299
Summary: Ref T182. Nothing fancy, just make these slightly easier to work with.
Test Plan: {F884754}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T182
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14295
Summary: If you `!assign cahd` when you meant to `!assign chad`, we'll hit an "Undefined variable: assign_phid" a little further down.
Test Plan: Eyeballed it. See IRC.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14291
Summary:
Fixes T9273. Remarkup has reasonably good fundamentals but the API is a giant pain to work with.
Provide a `PHUIRemarkupView` to make it easier. This object is way simpler to use by default.
It's not currently as powerful, but we can expand the power level later by adding more setters.
Eventually I'd expect to replace `PhabricatorRemarkupInterface` and `PhabricatorMarkupOneOff` with this, but no rush on those.
I converted a few callsites as a sanity check that it works OK.
Test Plan:
- Viewed remarkup in Passphrase.
- Viewed remarkup in Badges.
- Viewed a Conduit method.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9273
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14289
Summary: Fixes T9573. This incorrectly affected Phriction. I could restore it for only projects, but you didn't like the rule very much anyway and I don't feel strongly about it.
Test Plan: Unit tests.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9573
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14287
Summary: Ref T9336. Links the timeline photo to user profile. Presume this always exists?
Test Plan: Review a few timelines, click on heads.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9336
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14283
Summary: Ref T182. Make a reasonable attempt to get the commit message, author, and committer data correct.
Test Plan: BEHOLD: rGITTEST810b7f17cd0c909256a45d29a5062fcf417d0489
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T182
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14280
Summary: Fixes T9568. We just weren't setting this properly so it would default away from the proper value.
Test Plan:
- Edited a credential in a non-default space, edit form populated properly.
- Changed "Space", introduced an error, saved form, got error with sticky value for "Space" properly.
- Saved form with new space value.
- Created a new credential.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: revi
Maniphest Tasks: T9568
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14278
Summary:
Ref T9252. This fixes a bug from D14236. D14272 discusses the observable effects of the bug, primarily that the window for racing is widened from ~a few milliseconds to several minutes under our configuration.
This SQL query is missing a `GROUP BY` clause, so all of the resources get counted as having the same status (specifically, the alphabetically earliest status any resource had, I think). For test cases this often gets the right result since the number of resources may be small and they may all have the same status, but in production this isn't true. In particular, the allocator would sometimes see "35 destroyed resources" (or whatever), when the real counts were "32 destroyed resources + 3 pending resources".
Since this allocator behavior is soft/advisory this didn't cause any actual problems, per se (we do expect races here occasionally), it just made the race very very easy to hit. For example, Drydock in production currently has three pending working copy resources. Although we do expect this to be //possible//, getting 4 resources when the configured limit is 1 should be hard (not lightning strike / cosmic radiaion hard, but "happens once a year" hard).
Also exclude destroyed resources since we never care about them.
Test Plan:
Followed the plan from D14272 and restarted two Harbormaster workers at the same time.
After this patch was applied, they no longer created two different resources (we expect it to be possible for this to happen, just very hard).
We should still be able to force this race by putting something like `sleep(10)` right before the query, then `sleep(10)` right after it. That would prevent the allocators from seeing one another (so they would both think there were no other resources) and push us down the pathway where we exceed the soft limit.
Reviewers: chad, hach-que
Reviewed By: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14274
Summary:
Ref T9252. This is mostly a fix for an edge case from D14236. Here's the setup:
- There are no resources.
- A request for a new resource arrives.
- We build a new resource.
Now, if we were leasing an existing resource, we'd call `canAcquireLeaseOnResource()` before acquiring a lease on the new resource.
However, for new resources we don't do that: we just acquire a lease immediately. This is wrong, because we now allow and expect some resources to be unleasable when created.
In a more complex workflow, this can also produce the wrong result and leave the lease acquired sub-optimally (and, today, deadlocked).
Make the "can we acquire?" pathway consistent for new and existing resources, so we always do the same set of checks.
Test Plan:
- Started daemons.
- Deleted all working copy resources.
- Ran two working-copy-using build plans at the same time.
- Before this change, one would often [1] acquire a lease on a pending resource which never allocated, then deadlock.
- After this change, the same thing happens except that the lease remains pending and the work completes.
[1] Although the race this implies is allowed (resource pool limits are soft/advisory, and it is expected that we may occasionally run over them), it's MUCH easier to hit right now than I would expect it to be, so I think there's probably at least one more small bug here somewhere. I'll see if I can root it out after this change.
Reviewers: chad, hach-que
Reviewed By: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14272
Summary:
Ref T182. If 35 other things are configured completely correctly, make it remotely possible that this button may do something approximating the thing that the user wanted.
This primarily fleshes out the idea that "operations" (like landing, merging or cherry-picking) can have some beahavior, and when we run an operation we do whatever that behavior is instead of just running `git show`.
Broadly, this isn't too terrible because Drydock seems like it actually works properly for the most part (???!?!).
Test Plan: {F876431}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T182
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14270
Summary:
Ref T182. This doesn't do anything interesting yet and is mostly scaffolding, but here's roughly the workflow. From previous revision, you can configure "Repository Automation" for a repository:
{F875741}
If it's configured, a new "Land Revision" button shows up:
{F875743}
Once you click it you get a big warning dialog that it won't work, and then this shows up at the top of the revision (completely temporary/placeholder UI, some day a nice progress bar or whatever):
{F875747}
If you're lucky, the operation eventually sort of works:
{F875750}
It only runs `git show` right now, doesn't actually do any writes or anything.
Test Plan:
- Clicked "Land Revision".
- Watched `phd debug task`.
- Saw it log `git show` to output.
- Verified operation success in UI (by fiddling URL, no way to get there normally yet).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: revi
Maniphest Tasks: T182
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14266
Summary:
Ref T182. This allows you to assign blueprints that a repository can use to perform working copy operations. Eventually, this will support "merge this" in Differential, etc.
This is just UI for now, with no material effects.
Most of this diff is just taking logic that was in the existing "Blueprints" CustomField and putting it in more general places so Diffusion (which does not use CustomFields) can also access it.
Test Plan:
- Configured repository automation for a repository.
- Removed repository automation for a repository.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: avivey
Maniphest Tasks: T182
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14259
Summary: Fixes T9552. We need to set a questionID and the question object (for policy) when initializing a new Answer.
Test Plan: Write an answer that mentions another user.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9552
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14263
Summary:
Fixes T9558. The recent changes to validate PHID fields don't work cleanly with this gross hack.
This can probably be unwound now but it will definitely get fixed in T9132 so I may just wait for that.
Test Plan: Edited a custom "users" field in Maniphest. This should only affect Maniphest because it has a weird hack.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9558
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14264
Summary: Ref T182. Ref T9519. Some of what this describes doesn't exist yet, but should soon.
Test Plan: Read documentation.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T182, T9519
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14258
Summary:
In Mercurial 3.2 the `locate` command was deprecated in favor of `files` command. This change updates the DiffusionLowLevelMercurialPathsQuery command to conditionally use `locate` or `files` based on the version of Mercurial used.
Closes T7375
Test Plan:
My test/develop Phabricator instance is setup to run Mercurial 3.5.1.
The test procedure to verify valid file listings are being returned:
1. I navigated to `http://192.168.0.133/conduit/method/diffusion.querypaths/`
2. I populated the following fields:
- path: `"/"`
- commit: `"d721d5b57fc9ef72e47ff9d4e0c583d74a46590c"`
- callsign: `"HGTEST"`
3. I submitted request and verified that result contained all files in the repository:
```
{
"0": "README",
"1": "alpha/beta/trifle",
"2": "test/Chupacabra.cow",
"3": "test/socket.ks"
}
```
I repeated the above steps after setting up Mercurial 2.6.2, which I installed in the following manner:
1. I downloaded Mercurial 2.6.2 source and run `make local` which will only compile it to work from its own directory (`/opt/mercurial-2.6.2`)
2. I linked `/usr/local/bin/hg -> /opt/mercurial-2.6.2/hg` (there's also a `/usr/bin/hg` which is a link to `/usr/local/bin/hg`)
3. I navigated to my home directory and verify that `hg --version` returns 2.6.2.
4. I restarted phabricator services (probably unnecessary).
With the Multimeter application active
1. I verified that `/usr/local/bin/hg` referred to version 2.6
2. I ran the same conduit call from the conduit application
3. I verified that `http://192.168.0.133/multimeter/?type=2&group=label` incremented values for `bin.hg locate`.
4. I swapped out mercurial versions for 3.5.1
5. I ran the same conduit call from the conduit application
6. I verified that `http://192.168.0.133/multimeter/?type=2&group=label` incremented values for `bin.hg files`
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T7375
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14253
Summary:
Ref T9551. We currently use the same logic for generating project hashtags and Phriction slugs, but should be a little more conservative with project hashtags.
Stop them from generating with stuff that won't parse in a "Reviewers:" field or generally in commments (commas, colons, etc).
Test Plan:
Created a bunch of projects with nonsense in them and saw them generate pretty reasonable hashtags.
{F873456}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9551
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14261
Summary:
Ref T9551. To set things up:
- Name a project `aa bb`. This will have the tag `aa_bb`.
- Try to visit `/tag/aa%20bb`.
Here's what happens now:
- You get an Aphront redirect error as it tries to add the trailing `/`. Add `phutil_escape_uri()` so that works again.
- Then, you 404, even though this tag is reasonably equivalent to the real project tag and could be redirected. Add a fallback to lookup, resolve, and redirect if we can find a hit for the tag.
This also fixes stuff like `/tag/AA_BB/`.
Test Plan: Visited URIs like `/tag/aa%20bb`, `/tag/aa%20bb/`, `/tag/Aa_bB/`, etc. None of them worked before and now they all do.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9551
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14260
Summary:
Ref T9519. When acquiring leases on resources:
- Only consider resources created by authorized blueprints.
- Only consider authorized blueprints when creating new resources.
- Fail with a tailored error if no blueprints are allowed.
- Fail with a tailored error if missing authorizations are causing acquisition failure.
One somewhat-substantial issue with this is that it's pretty hard to figure out from the Harbormaster side. Specifically, the Build step UI does not show field value anywhere, so the presence of unapproved blueprints is not communicated. This is much more clear in Drydock. I'll plan to address this in future changes to Harbormaster, since there are other related/similar issues anyway.
Test Plan: {F872527}
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9519
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14254
Summary: Updates metamta for handleRequest
Test Plan: Unable to test this, but looks safe?
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14256
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 T9519. This is like 80% of the way there and doesn't fully work yet, but roughly shows the shape of things to come. Here's how it works:
First, there's a new custom field type for blueprints which works like a normal typeahead but has some extra logic. It's implemented this way to make it easy to add to Blueprints in Drydock and Build Plans in Harbormaster. Here, I've added a "Use Blueprints" field to the "WorkingCopy" blueprint, so you can control which hosts the working copies are permitted to allocate on:
{F869865}
This control has a bit of custom rendering logic. Instead of rendering a normal list of PHIDs, it renders an annotated list with icons:
{F869866}
These icons show whether the blueprint on the other size of the authorization has approved this object. Once you have a green checkmark, you're good to go.
On the blueprint side, things look like this:
{F869867}
This table shows all the objects which have asked for access to this blueprint. In this case it's showing that one object is approved to use the blueprint since I already approved it, but by default new requests come in here as "Authorization Requested" and someone has to go approve them.
You approve them from within the authorization detail screen:
{F869868}
You can use the "Approve" or "Decline" buttons to allow or prevent use of the blueprint.
This doesn't actually do anything yet -- objects don't need to be authorized in order to use blueprints quite yet. That will come in the next diff, I just wanted to get the UI in reasonable shape first.
The authorization also has a second piece of state, which is whether the request from the object is active or inactive. We use this to keep track of the authorization if the blueprint is (maybe temporarily) deleted.
For example, you might have a Build Plan that uses Blueprints A and B. For a couple days, you only want to use A, so you remove B from the "Use Blueprints: ..." field. Later, you can add B back and it will connect to its old authorization again, so you don't need to go re-approve things (and if you're declined, you stay declined instead of being able to request authorization over and over again). This should make working with authorizations a little easier and less labor intensive.
Stuff not in this diff:
- Actually preventing any allocations (next diff).
- Probably should have transactions for approve/decline, at least, at some point, so there's a log of who did approvals and when.
- Maybe should have a more clear/loud error state when no blueprints are approved?
- Should probably restrict the typeahead to specific blueprint types.
Test Plan:
- Added the field.
- Typed some stuff into it.
- Saw the UI update properly.
- Approved an authorization.
- Declined an authorization.
- Saw active authorizations on a blueprint page.
- Didn't see any inactive authroizations there.
- Clicked "View All Authorizations", saw all authorizations.
Reviewers: chad, hach-que
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9519
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14251
Summary:
If Mercurial 3.4+ is used to host repositories in Phabricator, any clients using 3.5+ will receive an exception after the bundle is pushed up. Clients will also fail to update phases for changesets pushed up.
Before directly responding to mercurial clients with all capabilities, this change filters out the 'bundle2' capability so the client negotiates using a legacy bundle wire format instead.
Test Plan:
Server: Mercurial 3.5
Client: Mercurial 3.4
Test with both HTTP and SSH protocols:
1. Create a local commit on client
2. Push commit to server
3. Verify the client emits something like:
```
searching for changes
remote: adding changesets
remote: adding manifests
remote: adding file changes
remote: added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files
```
Closes T9450
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9450
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14241
Summary: These directories didn't get added to `.gitignore`, but should be.
Test Plan:
- Touched a dummy file in each directory.
- Ran `git status`.
- Didn't see the file show up.
Reviewers: chad, cspeckmim
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14249
Summary: Fixes T9538. Ref T9408. `cowsay` and `figlet` Remarkup rules are being mangled in HTML mail right now. Put them in <pre> to unmangle them.
Test Plan:
Sent myself a cow + figlet in mail.
Used `bin/mail show-outbound --id ... --dump-html > dump.html` + open that HTML file in Safari to preview HTML mail.
Saw linebreaks and monospaced formatting.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9538, T9408
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14248
Summary:
Ref T9524. Because fetching the last time files were modified in Diffusion can be slow, we bring it in over Ajax.
The logic to fetch and paint the table is kind of fragile because there are two different definitions of the columns right now and we break in a bad way if they differ.
In particular, calling `diffusion.updatecoverage` can populate a "lint commit" for a repository, which tries to generate lint information in one of the views (but not the other one).
In the longer run I think we're removing some of the concepts here and this rendering should be rebuilt to not have two separate column definitions, but just make it degrade gracefully for now since those are larger changes.
Test Plan:
Reproduced the issue in T9524 by calling `diffusion.updatecoverage` on a repostiory. Specifically, this has a side effect of creating a "lint commit" which triggers a "lint" column in this table, sort of.
Applied this patch, got a clean render.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9524
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14243
Summary:
Ref T9123. Two major Harbormaster-related UI changes in Diffusion:
- Tags table now shows tag build status.
- Branches table now shows branch build status.
Then some minor consistency / qualtiy of life changes:
- Picked a nicer looking "history" icon?
- Branches table now uses the same "history" icon as other tables.
- Tags table now has a "history" link.
- Browse table now has a "history" link.
- Dates now use more consistent formatting.
- Column order is now more consistent.
- Use of style is now more consistent.
Test Plan:
{F865056}
{F865057}
{F865058}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9123
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14242
Summary: Ref T9514. I missed these when I swapped out the console stuff recently.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/storage probe`, saw bold instead of escape sequences.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9514
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14240
Summary: Ref T9252. Move these into a new "Drydock" group.
Test Plan: Clicked "Add Build Step", saw Drydock steps in a Drydock group.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14237
Summary:
Ref T9252. I think there's a more complex version of this problem discussed elsewhere, but here's what we hit today:
- 5 commits land at the same time and trigger 5 builds.
- All of them go to acquire a working copy.
- Working copies have a limit of 1 right now, so 1 of them gets the lease on it.
- The other 4 all trigger allocation of //new// working copies. So now we have: 1 active, leased working copy and 4 pending, leased working copies.
- The 4 pending working copies will never activate without manual intervention, so these 4 builds are stuck forever.
To fix this, prevent WorkingCopies from giving out leases until they activate. So now the leases won't acquire until we know the working copy is good, which solves the first problem.
However, this creates a secondary problem:
- As above, all 5 go to acquire a working copy.
- One gets it.
- The other 4 trigger allocations, but no longer acquire leases. This is an improvement.
- Every time the leases update, they trigger another allocation, but never acquire. They trigger, say, a few thousand allocations.
- Eventually the first build finishes up and the second lease acquires the working copy. After some time, all of the builds finish.
- However, they generated an unboundedly large number of pending working copy resources during this time.
This is technically "okay-ish", in that it did work correctly, it just generated a gigantic mess as a side effect.
To solve this, at least for now, provide a mechanism to impose allocation rate limits and put a cap on the number of allocating resources of a given type. As hard-coded, this the greater of "1" or "25% of the active resources in the pool".
So if there are 40 working copies active, we'll start allocating up to 10 more and then cut new allocations off until those allocations get sorted out. This prevents us from getting runaway queues of limitless size.
This also imposes a total active working copy resource limit of 1, which incidentally also fixes the problem, although I expect to raise this soon.
These mechanisms will need refinement, but the basic idea is:
- Resources which aren't sure if they can actually activate should wait until they do activate before allowing leases to acquire them. I'm fairly confident this rule is a reasonable one.
- Then we limit how many bookkeeping side effects Drydock can generate once it starts encountering limits.
Broadly, some amount of mess is inevitable because Drydock is allowed to try things that might not work. In an extreme case we could prevent this mess by setting all these limits at "1" forever, which would degrade Drydock to effectively be a synchronous, blocking queue.
The idea here is to put some amount of slack in the system (more than zero, but less than infinity) so we get the performance benefits of having a parallel, asyncronous system without a finite, manageable amount of mess.
Numbers larger than 0 but less than infinity are pretty tricky, but I think rules like "X% of active resources" seem fairly reasonable, at least for resources like working copies.
Test Plan:
Ran something like this:
```
for i in `seq 1 5`; do sh -c '(./bin/harbormaster build --plan 10 rX... &) &'; done;
```
Saw 5 plans launch, acquire leases, proceed in an orderly fashion, and eventually finish successfully.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14236
Summary:
Ref T9513. I checked this briefly but didn't do a very thorough job of it.
- Don't try to query merges for Subversion, since it doesn't support them.
- Fix up "existsquery" to work properly (and efficiently) for both hosted and imported repositories.
- Fix up "parentsquery" to have similar behavior on invalid commits to other VCSes (throw an exception).
Test Plan:
- No more merges warning on SVN.
- Hosted SVN gets the right exists result now.
- Visiting "r23980283789287" now 404's instead of "not parsed yet".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9513
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14239
Summary:
Ref T9252. Currently, `queueTask()` accepts `$priority` as its third argument. Allow it to take a full range of `$options` instead. This API just never got updated after we expanded avialable options.
Arguably this whole API should be some kind of "TaskQueueRequest" object but I'll leave that for another day.
Test Plan:
- Grepped for `queueTask()` and verified no other callsites are affected by this API change.
- Ran some daemons.
- See also next diff.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: hach-que, chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14235
Summary:
Ref T9252. Currently, Harbormaster and Drydock work like this in some cases:
# Queue a lease for activation.
# Then, a little later, save the lease PHID somewhere.
# When the target/resource is destroyed, destroy the lease.
However, something can happen between (1) and (2). In Drydock this window is very short and the "something" would have to be a lighting strike or something similar, but in Harbormaster we wait until the resource activates to do (2) so the window can be many minutes long. In particular, a user can use "Abort Build" during those many minutes.
If they do, the target is destroyed but it doesn't yet have a record of the artifact, so the artifact isn't cleaned up.
Make these things work like this instead:
# Create a new lease and pre-generate a PHID for it.
# Save that PHID as something that needs to be cleaned up.
# Queue the lease for activation.
# When the target/resource is destroyed, destroy the lease if it exists.
This makes sure there's no step in the process where we might lose track of a lease/resource.
Also, clean up and standardize some other stuff I hit.
Test Plan:
- Stopped daemons.
- Restarted a build in Harbormaster.
- Stepped through the build one stage at a time using `bin/worker execute ...`.
- After the lease was queued, but before it activated, aborted the build.
- Processed the Harbormaster side of things only.
- Saw the lease get destroyed properly.
Reviewers: chad, hach-que
Reviewed By: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14234
Summary:
Ref T9028. When users push a commit, then later delete it (e.g., by deleting the branch which contained it) we currently explode when trying to view it.
Instead, degrade gradually if some information is not available.
Test Plan:
- Looked at valid commits with parents, refs, branches and merges.
- Looked at invalid commits.
- Looked at a previously valid, now-deleted + gc'd commit:
{F859273}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9028
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14227
