Add manual run and retry for Review Bot tools.

 






 

 


  Review Request #11130
  —
  Created Aug. 10, 2020 and submitted 

 


















 

  

   Information

  





 
 

  david
 









 
 

  ReviewBot
 









 
 

  master
 









 
 

  4649
 









 
 

  
 









 
 

  154f645...
 






 




 

  

   Reviewers

  





 
 

  reviewbot
 









 
 

  
 






 








 





  


 
 

  
This change adds the ability for Review Bot to run tools manually. This

is used in two ways:


    

  • Tool configurations can now be set to only be run manually. In this
    
  case, the tool will create a status update in the NOT_YET_RUN state.
    • 

  • All tool configurations will mark the status update as retryable,
    
  which will allow the trigger of a retry in the case of error or
    
  timeout states.
    • 



Based on work by Alex Klemenchuk at /r/10316

 








  


 
 

  
    

  • Created a configuration set to only run manually. Verified that the
    
  initial status update was correctly created in the NOT_YET_RUN state,
    
  and that clicking the "Run" button triggered a tool run and subsequent
    
  update.
    • 

  • Triggered the run of a tool not normally set to run manually but
    
  without running the worker process (resulting in a timeout). Saw that
    
  the "Retry" button was shown and that clicking it re-ran the tool.
    • 

  • Tested that the correct diffset was chosen when running and retrying
    
  tools.
    • 


 







 









 





  








 






 
 
 

  

   

    

     
    

    
    
     
  • 
      
     
    • 
     
  • 
      
     
    • 
     
  • 
      
     
    • 
     
  • 
      
     
    • 
     
  • 
      
     
    • 
    

   

   

    
     

      Description
      From
      Last Updated
     

    
    



     

      
       
       
This needs some work to gate off the Run Manually capabilities if not present in Review Board. We don't want …

      		
      
       chipx86chipx86
      
      
       
      
     




     

      
       
       
_get_matching_configs() is a generator, so the if check and len and [0] below don't seem like they'd work?

      		
      
       chipx86chipx86
      
      
       
      
     




     

      
       
       
It's apparent in retrospect, but (and this is probably me being tired) it took too long to realize why we …

      		
      
       chipx86chipx86
      
      
       
      
     




     

      
       
       
Probably worth tracking this in Asana with some info on what's wrong.

      		
      
       chipx86chipx86
      
      
       
      
     




     

      
       
       
Maybe worth doing this filtering in _get_matching_configs so we don't compute any more data than we have to?

      		
      
       chipx86chipx86
      
      
       
      
     




     

      
       
       
Got a bunch of thoughts here. It seems we can get, say, 15 configs here. So: Each time we get …

      		
      
       chipx86chipx86
      
      
       
      
     




     

      
       
       
Can we use update_fields= here?

      		
      
       chipx86chipx86
      
      
       
      
     


    
   

  

 







 






  

 



















 




 




 














 





 

  

   




chipx86




   

   







  

 



 

  


   

   

    
 
chipx86


    
   


  

  

  



    




  1. 
 
    
  
    
   
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    2. 







  2. 
 
    
  
  
    
  
   
    
    
    




    
 
    
  
  
  

  
  
   Show all issues
  
 
    

    



    
    This needs some work to gate off the Run Manually capabilities if not present in Review Board. We don't want to outright crash on 3.0.18 or older.
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    3. 













  3. 
 
    
  
    
   
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    4. 




  

 
















 



 

  

   




david




   

   

  

 



 















 





 

  

   




chipx86




   

   







  

 



 

  


   

   

    
 
chipx86


    
   


  

  

  



    




  1. 
 
    
  
    
   
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    2. 

















  2. 
 
    
  
  
    
  
 
    
  
    
   
    
    
     
      extension/reviewbotext/integration.py
      


       (Diff revision 2)


      
     
    
    
       
   
    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

       
  
    
 
    

   
    
    
    




    
 
    
  
  
  

  
  
   Show all issues
  
 
    

    



    
    It's apparent in retrospect, but (and this is probably me being tired) it took too long to realize why we were checking this and bailing. Can we add a comment saying that we're skipping status updates performed by other scripts or extensions?
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    3. 






  3. 
 
    
  
  
    
  
 
    
  
    
   
    
    
     
      extension/reviewbotext/integration.py
      


       (Diff revision 2)


      
     
    
    
       
   
    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

       
  
    
 
    

   
    
    
    




    
 
    
  
  
  

  
  
   Show all issues
  
 
    

    



    
    Probably worth tracking this in Asana with some info on what's wrong.
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    4. 






  4. 
 
    
  
  
    
  
 
    
  
    
   
    
    
     
      extension/reviewbotext/integration.py
      


       (Diff revision 2)


      
     
    
    
       
   
    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

       
  
    
 
    

   
    
    
    




    
 
    
  
  
  

  
  
   Show all issues
  
 
    

    



    
    Maybe worth doing this filtering in _get_matching_configs so we don't compute any more data than we have to?
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    5. 






  5. 
 
    
  
  
    
  
 
    
  
    
   
    
    
     
      extension/reviewbotext/integration.py
      


       (Diff revision 2)


      
     
    
    
       
   
    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

       
  
    
 
    

   
    
    
    




    
 
    
  
  
  

  
  
   Show all issues
  
 
    

    



    
    Got a bunch of thoughts here.
    

    It seems we can get, say, 15 configs here. So:
    

      

    1. Each time we get one, we're setting some of the same state on status_update and then saving it, which ideally we wouldn't do (too many hits to the database, unnecessary timestamp updates).
      2. 

    2. We're also fetching the diff each time. This is going to be the same diff every time, but we're pulling from the database each time.
      3. 

    3. We're also setting up a session using extension.login_user() above, even if we have zero matching configs returned.
      4. 

    

    I might be wrong, but I think a better approach would be to have _get_matching_configs() to do the filtering (as mentioned in a prior comment) and then:
    

    

    if matching_configs:
    repository = ...
    changedesc = ...

    # Fetch the diffset here.
    try:
        ...
    except DiffSet.DoesNotExist:
        ...
        return

    session = extension.login_user()
    ...

    status_update.description = ...
    status_update.state = ...
    status_update.timestamp = ...
    status_update.save(update_fields=('description', 'state', 'timestamp'))

    for ... in matching_configs:
        queue = ...

        extension.celery.send_task(...)

    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  


    1. 
 
 
      
 
      
  
 
      
 
      
  
      I'll definitely make it more clear, but fundamentally this isn't an issue here because this is coming from the request-run signal, so there will only be a single config out of the set of matching configs that also matches the service_id check. I'll change it to pull out the single matching configuration so that it's clear it's only (at most) one.
      
 
      

      2. 


 
    


    

 
    

    6. 






  6. 
 
    
  
  
    
  
 
    
  
    
   
    
    
     
      extension/reviewbotext/integration.py
      


       (Diff revision 2)


      
     
    
    
       
   
    
     
    

    
     
    

       
  
    
 
    

   
    
    
    




    
 
    
  
  
  

  
  
   Show all issues
  
 
    

    



    
    Can we use update_fields= here?
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    7. 




  7. 
 
    
  
    
   
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    8. 




  

 
















 



 

  

   




david




   

   

  

 



 















 





 

  

   




chipx86




   

   







  

 



 

  


   

   

    
 
chipx86


    
   


  

  

  



    




  1. 
 
    
  
    
   
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    2. 

















  2. 
 
    
  
  
    
  
 
    
  
    
   
    
    
     
      extension/reviewbotext/integration.py
      


       (Diff revisions 2 - 3)


      
     
    
    
       
   
    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

    
     
    

       
  
    
 
    

   
    
    
    




    
 
    
  
  
  

  
  
   Show all issues
  
 
    

    



    
    _get_matching_configs() is a generator, so the if check and len and [0] below don't seem like they'd work?
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    3. 




  3. 
 
    
  
    
   
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    4. 




  

 
















 



 

  

   




david




   

   

  

 



 















 





 

  

   




chipx86




   

   







  

 



 

  


   

   

    
 
chipx86


    
   


  

  

  



    




  1. 
 
    
  
    
   
    Ship It!
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    2. 















  2. 
 
    
  
    
   
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    3. 




  

 
















 



 

  

   




david




   

   

  

 



 

  


   

   

    
 Review request changed

    
   


  

  

  






 

  Status:
  

  Closed (submitted)

  
 




 
Change Summary:

 
Pushed to master (4154985)





 


 










  

 









     

    

   

  

  

   
   Loading...