Pass the RBTools configuration to the HTTP/API layer.

Review Request #14221 — Created Nov. 2, 2024 and submitted

Information

RBTools
release-5.x

Reviewers

We currently pass a lot of options all the way from RBClient to the
transport to ReviewBoardServer, and this list has continued to grow
over time. We will soon be needing another option, and instead of
continuing to add dedicated options, we're now passing the loaded
configuration instead.

RBToolsConfig was added in RBTools 5, and consolidates all of our
loaded options. This is easier to populate/load and pass around.
RBClient, SyncTransport, and ReviewBoardServer now all take this
as arguments.

If this is not provided, ReviewBoardServer will load a configuration.
This avoids breaking API compatibility with any custom scripts or hooks.
The loaded configuration will always be explicitly provided when being
run from a command.

Unit tests passed.

Successfully posted this change for review.

Made use of the configuration in an in-progress change.

Summary ID
Pass the RBTools configuration to the HTTP/API layer.
We currently pass a lot of options all the way from `RBClient` to the transport to `ReviewBoardServer`, and this list has continued to grow over time. We will soon be needing another option, and instead of continuing to add dedicated options, we're now passing the loaded configuration instead. `RBToolsConfig` was added in RBTools 5, and consolidates all of our loaded options. This is easier to populate/load and pass around. `RBClient`, `SyncTransport`, and `ReviewBoardServer` now all take this as arguments. If this is not provided, `ReviewBoardServer` will load a configuration. This avoids breaking API compatibility with any custom scripts or hooks. The loaded configuration will always be explicitly provided when being run from a command.
c11b0c7632682b0a059c0105f5e687148956852a
Description From Last Updated

Now that we have this config option, should we deprecate all of the individual options?

maubinmaubin

If there's a value set in config and a different value set as an individual option, which value should be …

maubinmaubin
david
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
maubin
  1. 
      
  2. Show all issues

    Now that we have this config option, should we deprecate all of the individual options?

    1. Unfortunately right now the things in options take precendence over things in config (and any options which have config-based defaults will get populated as the default for the option). I want to change this so we merge options into config instead of vice-versa, but that's a bigger project.

    2. Oh I see. We should add some docs or comments to guide callers on what to do with options vs the config.

  3. Show all issues

    If there's a value set in config and a different value set as an individual option, which value should be used?

    1. Right now there's nothing used in config outside of this one key. We don't treat it special or default any arguments based off of this today. I think for this release, we're going to just make this an "etc" object, prioritizing the other variables. Eventually I want to give the API and transport machinery a hard look, at which point we'll address the rest of this.

    2. Gotcha, sounds good to me.

  4. 
      
maubin
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
chipx86
Review request changed
Status:
Completed
Change Summary:
Pushed to release-5.x (09b2812)