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: I'm pretty sure that `@group` annotations are useless now... see D9855. Also fixed various other minor issues.
Test Plan: Eye-ball it.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley, chad
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9859
Summary: This implements showing the buildable status in Diffusion and unifies some of the logic used to calculate and render build and buildable statuses.
Test Plan: Looked at diffs and commits with statuses, they rendered fine. Looked at Diffusion and saw buildable status appear (with a manual buildable and manual buildables included in the query).
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley, chad
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9496
Summary: Ref T4986. Instead of requiring users to know the name of an application search engine class, let them select from a list.
Test Plan:
Created a new panel.
{F165468}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4986
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9500
Summary: This went smoother than expeced. Makes the rounded Card the default, also tweaked selected state a little.
Test Plan:
Test UIExamples, Maniphest, Home, Differential, Harbormaster, Audit. Everything seems normal
{F163971}
{F163973}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9408
Summary:
Updates policy, headers, typeaheads to FA over policy icons
Need advice - can't seem to place where icons come from on Typeahead? Wrong icons and wrong colors.... it is late
Test Plan:
- grepped for SPRITE_STATUS
- grepped for sprite-status
- grepped for setStatus for headers
- grepped individual icons names
Browsed numerous places, checked new dropdowns, see pudgy people.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T4739
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9179
Summary:
Create transaction, editor, etc, and move command generation over to editor.
Show in a timeline in the buildable page.
Also prevent Engine from creating an empty transaction when build starts (Fixes T4885).
Fixes T4886.
Test Plan: Restart builds and buildables, look at timeline.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T4885, T4886
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9110
Summary: Ref T4986. These are mostly mechanical now, I skipped a couple of slightly tricky ones. Still a bunch to go.
Test Plan:
For each engine:
- Viewed the application;
- created a panel to issue the query.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4986
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9017
Summary:
Ref T4809. Currently, buildables have a status field but nothing populates it. Populate it:
- When builds change state, update the Buildable state.
- Use the new Buildable state on the web UI.
- Return the new Buildable state from Conduit.
To make it easier to debug/test this:
- Provide `bin/harbormaster update Bxxx ...` to force foreground update of a Buildable.
Test Plan:
- Used `bin/harbormaster update Bxxx --force --trace` to update buildables.
- Looked at buidlable list, saw statuses reported properly.
- Used Conduit to read statuses.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4809
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8799
Summary: Ref T4809. I need to sort out some of the "status" stuff we're doing before this is actually useful (there's no sensible "status" value to expose right now) but once that happens `arc` can query this to figure out whether it needs to warn the user about pending/failed builds.
Test Plan: Ran query with various different parameters.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4809
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8794
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:
This hooks up all the pieces of the build pipeline so `harbormaster.sendmessage` actually works. Particularly:
- Candidate build steps (i.e., those which interact with external systems) can now "Wait for Message". This pauses them indefinitely when they complete, until something calls `harbormaster.sendmessage`.
- After processing a target, we check if we should move it to PASSED or WAITING.
- Before updating a build, we move WAITING targets with pending messages to either PASSED or FAILED.
- I added an explicit "Building" state, which doesn't affect workflows but communicates more information to human users.
A big part of this is avoiding races. I believe we get the correct behavior no matter which order events occur in:
- We update builds after targets complete and after we receive messages, so we're guaranteed to update once both these conditions are true. This means messages can't be lost (even if they arrive before a build completes).
- The minor changes to the build engine logic mean that firing additional build updates is always safe, no matter what the current state of the build is.
- The build itself is protected by a lock in the build engine.
- The target is not covered by an explicit lock, but for all states only the engine (waiting) //or// the worker (all other states) can interact with it. All of the interactions also move the target state forward to the same destination and have no other side effects.
- Messages are only consumed inside the engine lock, so they don't need an explicit lock.
Test Plan:
- Made an HTTP request wait after completion, then ran a pile of builds through it using `bin/harbormaster build` and the web UI.
- Passed and failed message-awaiting builds with `harbormaster.sendmessage`.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley, zeeg
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8788
Summary:
Ref T1049. Allows external systems to send a message to a build target. The primary intended use case is:
- You make an HTTP request to Jenkins.
- The build goes into a "waiting" state.
- Later, Jenkins calls `harbormaster.sendmessage` to report that the target passed or failed.
- The build continues as appropriate.
This is deceptively complicated because:
- There are a lot of race concerns. We might get a message back from an external system before it even responds to the request we made. We want to make sure we process these messages no matter when we receive them.
- These messages need to be sent to a build target (vs a build or buildable) because we'll get into trouble with parallelization later on otherwise (Jenkins is told to do 3 builds; we can't tell which ones failed or what overall state is unless the message are sent to targets).
- I initially thought about implementing this as a separate "Wait for a response from an external system" build step. This gets a lot more complicated for users once we do parallelization, though. Particularly, in the case where you've told Jenkins to do 3 builds, the three "wait" steps need to know which target they're waiting for (and jenkins needs to know some unique identifier for each target). So this pretty much boils down to a more complicated, more error-prone version of using target PHIDs.
This makes the already-muddy Build UI a bit worse, but it needs a general clarity pass anyway (it's showing way too much uninteresting data, and should show a better summary of results instead).
Test Plan:
- This doesn't really do anything interesting yet.
- Used Conduit to send messages to build plans.
- Viewed the messages on the build screen.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8604
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. 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 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:
Ref T1049. Generally, it's useful to separate test/trial/manual runs from production/automatic runs.
For example, you don't want to email a bunch of people that the build is broken just because you messed something up when writing a new build plan. You'd rather try it first, then promote it into production once you have some good runs.
Similarly, test runs generally should not affect the outside world, etc. Finally, some build steps (like "wait for other buildables") may want to behave differently when run in production/automation than when run in a testing environment (where they should probably continue immediately).
So, formalize the distinction between automatic buildables (those created passively by the system in response to events) and manual buildables (those created explicitly by users). Add filtering, and stop the automated parts of the system from interacting with the manual parts (for example, we won't show manual results on revisions).
This also moves the "Apply Build Plan" to a third, new home: instead of the sidebar or Buildables, it's now on plans. I think this generally makes more sense given how things have developed. Broadly, this improves isolation of test environments.
Test Plan: Created some builds, browsed around, used filters, etc.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7824
Summary: Ref T1049. Adds "Repository", "Revision", "Diff" and "Commit" as searchable fields.
Test Plan: Used all the fields to filter things.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7823
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 migrates the "Run Remote Command" build step over to use Drydock hosts and Harbormaster artifacts.
Test Plan:
Created a build plan with a "Lease Host" step and a "Run Command" step. Configured the "Run Command" step to use the artifact from the "Lease Host" step.
Saw the results:
{F87377}
{F87378}
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1049, T4111
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7707
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 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. Nothing fancy, but shows red for fail/error and green for pass. See discussion in D7502.
Test Plan: {F78839}
Reviewers: hach-que, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7512
Summary:
Depends on D7501.
This just renders the buildable's actual object name onto the list, so you can see at a glance what the buildable represents. I'd like to also pull across a list of builds of this buildable and change the bar color, but I'm not quite sure how to do that in the search architecture without N+1 querying.
Test Plan:
Looked at the buildable list and it looked like this:
{F78555}
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7502
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: 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
