Add manual trigger run and retry for TravisCI integration.
Review Request #11266 — Created Nov. 5, 2020 and submitted
Add manual trigger to TravisCI.
This change adds the ability for Integrations to run TravisCI manually.
A checkbox is added to the TravisCI form that indicates if TravisCI should
only run manually.This change also fixes the Jenkins build failing for git repositories with less
than 50 commits sincegit fetch --unshallow origin
fails.There was a bug where no TravisCI builds can be made on personal private GitHub
repositories because the GitHub username was being extracted from the wrong place.Based on work by David Trowbridge: /r/11130
Manually tested on Review Board 3. TravisCI (travis-ci.com) was set up and
connected to a private GitHub repository and Review Board 3. A TravisCI build
was not run when the manually run checkbox is unchecked and is run when the
field is checked. Clicking on the 'Run' button runs the TravisCI build.Verified the disabled/enabled run manually field by testing on Review Board
3.0.18, 3.0.19 and 4.0.x.Verified retry functionality when state is in ERROR and TIMEOUT states.
Unit tests to verify that a build is not run when the run manually
configuration is checked and to verify that a build is run when the signal is
emitted.Unit tests were also created to verify that the username is being pulled
from the correct place for the 4 different GitHub repository plans.
These were ran on Review Board 3.0 and Review Board 4.0 and their
supported versions of Python.
Summary | ID |
---|---|
7727980671a8ce70a5a714944178a8c9acd1a277 |
Description | From | Last Updated |
---|---|---|
W293 blank line contains whitespace |
reviewbot | |
We typically put things like this at the end of the relevant block of imports, rather than trying to keep … |
david | |
I think that there should be a period at the end of this comment. |
jblazusi | |
Similarly, I think that there should be a period at the end of this comment. |
jblazusi | |
I believe this """ should be on the next line. |
jblazusi | |
I believe this """ should be on the next line. |
jblazusi | |
I believe this """ should be on the next line. |
jblazusi | |
I believe this """ should be on the next line. |
jblazusi | |
Please remove the period at the end of this docstring, since the test runner will append an ellipsis. |
david | |
Same here. |
david | |
Same here. |
david | |
Same here. |
david | |
Same here. |
david | |
The grammar is funky here, but more importantly, I'm not sure we need this comment. This text seems to be … |
david |
- Description:
-
~ Add manual trigger to JenkinsCI.
~ Add manual trigger to TravisCI.
This change adds the ability for Integrations to run TravisCI manually.
~ A checkbox is added to the JenkinsCI form that indicates if TravisCI should ~ A checkbox is added to the TravisCI form that indicates if TravisCI should only run manually. ~ This change also fixes the Jenkins API failing for git repositories with less
~ This change also fixes the Jenkins build failing for git repositories with less
than 50 commits since git fetch --unshallow origin
fails.Based on work by David Trowbridge: /r/11130
- Commits:
-
Summary ID 8a68d8a800fec1e5e76ba69452adff747dc65531 e4e8e070d8180361f0a346b994a7acd18a0b8c4e
Checks run (2 succeeded)
- Description:
-
Add manual trigger to TravisCI.
This change adds the ability for Integrations to run TravisCI manually.
A checkbox is added to the TravisCI form that indicates if TravisCI should only run manually. This change also fixes the Jenkins build failing for git repositories with less
than 50 commits since git fetch --unshallow origin
fails.+ There was a bug where personal private GitHub repositories because the GitHub
+ username was being extracted from the wrong place. + Based on work by David Trowbridge: /r/11130
- Testing Done:
-
Manually tested on Review Board 3. TravisCI (travis-ci.com) was set up and
connected to a private GitHub repository and Review Board 3. A TravisCI build was not run when the manually run checkbox is unchecked and is run when the field is checked. Clicking on the 'Run' button runs the TravisCI build. Verified the disabled/enabled run manually field by testing on Review Board
3.0.18, 3.0.19 and 4.0.x. Verified retry functionality when state is in ERROR and TIMEOUT states.
Unit tests to verify that a build is not run when the run manually
configuration is checked and to verify that a build is run when the signal is emitted. + + Unit tests were also created to verify that the username is being pulled
+ from the correct place for the 4 different GitHub repository plans. + These were ran on Review Board 3.0 and Review Board 4.0 and their + supported versions of Python.
- Description:
-
Add manual trigger to TravisCI.
This change adds the ability for Integrations to run TravisCI manually.
A checkbox is added to the TravisCI form that indicates if TravisCI should only run manually. This change also fixes the Jenkins build failing for git repositories with less
than 50 commits since git fetch --unshallow origin
fails.~ There was a bug where personal private GitHub repositories because the GitHub
~ username was being extracted from the wrong place. ~ There was a bug where no TravisCI builds can be made on personal private GitHub
~ repositories because the GitHub username was being extracted from the wrong place. Based on work by David Trowbridge: /r/11130
- Change Summary:
-
Move try except import to end of block
- Commits:
-
Summary ID e4e8e070d8180361f0a346b994a7acd18a0b8c4e 3e834fcf3a2f97d8d1686304599c588af678003e
Checks run (2 succeeded)
-
Looks good, just found some nit picks regarding the styling on the comments. I am not 100% certain about all of them. So perhaps the mentors could verify.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Change Summary:
-
Adjust docstrings
- Commits:
-
Summary ID 3e834fcf3a2f97d8d1686304599c588af678003e e595af6d69e61cb821ce42ccec1ae3ccc7655e6c
Checks run (2 succeeded)
- Change Summary:
-
Removed period at the end of docstrings for tests
- Commits:
-
Summary ID e595af6d69e61cb821ce42ccec1ae3ccc7655e6c cc537902080fcccf4633797f205ef19a829ab0df
Checks run (2 succeeded)
-
-
The grammar is funky here, but more importantly, I'm not sure we need this comment. This text seems to be modeled on the previously-existing comment about review requests lacking diffs, but I'm not sure it adds useful information. The matching configs are literally what will get built--this isn't a filtering step in the way that the check for diffs is.