Summary: Ref T9456. Some rough edges and we can't complete the build yet since I haven't written a webhook, but this mostly seems to be working.
Test Plan:
- Ran this build on some stuff.
- Ran a normal HTTP step build to make sure I didn't break that.
{F880301}
{F880302}
{F880303}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: JustinTulloss, joshma
Maniphest Tasks: T9456
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14286
Summary: Ref T9478. This should probably be configurable eventually, but for now treat any 200-block status as success. Also show the result code.
Test Plan:
- Hit a bad URI, saw "HTTP 503" + failure.
- Hit a good URI, saw "HTTP 200" + success.
Reviewers: chad, hach-que
Reviewed By: chad, hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T9478
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14226
Summary: Ref T9252. This mostly cleans up future and log handling, and edges us closer to being able to do useful work with Harbormaster / Drydock.
Test Plan:
- Added a "Run `ls -alh`" step to my trivial build plan.
- Ran it a bunch of times.
- Worked great.
- Also did an HTTP plan.
{F835227}
{F835228}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14161
Summary:
Ref T8089. We have a lot of broken/confusing/prototype build steps that I want to hide from users when we unprototype Harbormaster.
The dialog is also just kind of unwieldy.
Organize this UI a little better and put all the sketchy junk in a "prototypes" group that you can't see unless prototypes are enabled.
This doesn't break anything (the old steps will still work fine), but should reduce user confusion.
Test Plan:
Old UI:
{F691439}
New UI (prototypes off):
{F691440}
New UI (prototypes on):
{F691441}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8089
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13803
Summary: Ref T5936. This implements build implementations aborting early when the build has since been restarted. Build steps now periodically poll to see if the build's current generation does not match their generation, and they throw a `HarbormasterBuildAbortedException` if that is the case.
Test Plan: Tested locally on my machine with the sleep build step.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T5936
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10322
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: Fixes T4590. Use the credentials custom field to allow Harbormaster HTTP requests to include usernames/passwords.
Test Plan: Ran a build plan with credentials, verified they were sent to the remote server.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4590
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8786
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. D8588 already required custom code to change what it extends, so this is as good a time as we're going to get to move to more standard class name.
Test Plan: `arc liberate`; `arc lint`
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8601
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. This generally simplifies things. The steps which don't support variables generally don't make sense to support varaibles anyway.
Test Plan: Edited some steps.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8588
Summary: Precedence here was mucked up.
Test Plan: Plan with no explicit "method" now defaults to POST correctly.
Reviewers: dctrwatson, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8559
Summary:
This revision adds a 'method' field to the HTTP request harbormaster build step. This allows the user to specify GET, POST, DELETE, and PUT (limited by the underlying wrapper phabricator uses for HTTP requests). I'm not sure how much sense PUT makes, but oh well.
Existing plans shouldn't break, as if this field is an empty string, we default to POST, which is the old behavior.
Fixes T4604
Test Plan: 1) Verified that the empty string does, in fact, issue a POST request. Changed the method to be GET and observed that the problem described in T4604 is resolved.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: aran, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4604
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8520
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:
Ref T1049. This is very minimal, but does what it says.
I merged the variable replacement code so Remote + HTTP can share more stuff.
Test Plan:
Ran "HTTP" and "Remote" build plans.
{F79886}
{F79887}
Reviewers: hach-que, btrahan
Reviewed By: hach-que
CC: zeeg, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7541
