Convert Review Bot to use an integration and status updates.

Review Request #8442 — Created Sept. 26, 2016 and submitted

Information

ReviewBot
master
1ce3133...

Reviewers

This change is a massive refactor to the interface between Review Board and
Review Bot. It involves two major pieces:

Integration: Review Bot configuration now uses the new integration framework.
When the Review Bot extension is enabled, it offers a configuration page that
only has the celery broker URL and the user who Review Bot should operate as.
Other configuration is then done by creating "integration configurations". Each
configuration allows selecting a tool to run, conditions for when that tool
should be run (which can be as simple as "Always" or as complicated as rules
for specific branches or authors. The tool-specific options are then merged
into this form, rather than just giving people an opaque JSON blob to edit.

Status Updates: Instead of creating regular reviews, Review Bot will now create
a review and associate it with a status update. Status updates are a new
feature that will batch the items together and give the whole thing a summary
status (such as "done-success" or "pending"). This eliminates the need to post
a review that shows that Review Bot ran but ignored all the files, since we now
have another feedback mechanism to show that Review Bot isn't wedged. It also
means we don't need to have any kind of coordination between the tools to batch
things together.

As part of this, I've removed a bunch of code. A lot of this code was stuff
that only existed on the master branch and was never really used in production.
This includes:

  • Review Bot can no longer give a "Ship It!" This is partly because status
    update reviews don't show the ship-it state, and partly because we don't
    think anyone was using it (having your automated tools tell people to ship
    their code is sketchy).
  • Reviews no longer have the default header which shows what files were
    processed or ignored.
  • The ToolExecution model has been completely removed, along with APIs. This
    was never really used that much, and is supplanted by the status update
    state.
  • The Profile and AutomaticRunGroup models have been removed, since their
    functionality is now in the integration configurations.
  • The ManualPermission model has been removed, since it was just an unfinished
    feature. We'll be figuring out manual execution of tools later.
  • Removed a bunch of other dead code.
  • Enabled the extension and created some integration configurations.
  • Verified that the configurations executed correctly based on their configured
    conditions and settings.
  • Published a bunch of diffs on different review requests and saw the Review
    Bot workers get notified, run their tools, and report their results.
  • Verified the appearance of Review Bot reviews within the new status updates.

Description From Last Updated

Can you add screenshots of the extension and integration configs, and status output?

chipx86chipx86

While here, it'd be nice to also include the review request/changedesc ID and diff revision (this would have been helpful …

chipx86chipx86

Do we want to use logging.exception here instead?

brenniebrennie

Can this show all matching items, to help see where the problem is?

chipx86chipx86

Can this also show the review request ID, changedesc, etc.? Helps when there's a bunch of entries in the log …

chipx86chipx86

Do we want to have this lowercase, or sentence case? Same below. It might also be nice to define these …

chipx86chipx86

This should also include identifying information. Same with other exceptions below.

chipx86chipx86

Should have a blank line here after the docstring.

chipx86chipx86

This is going to cause the stylesheet to show up for all integration configuration pages. This is going to be …

chipx86chipx86

Can we use integration-config.less instead, to better match the other stylesheet filenames in the products?

chipx86chipx86

You can just do: extension = ReviewBotExtension.instance

chipx86chipx86

We should catch exceptions here and raise a ValidationError.

chipx86chipx86

Docstring.

brenniebrennie

No blank line here.

chipx86chipx86

Move this to the top of the method.

brenniebrennie

This should use build_server_url with a local_site_reverse.

chipx86chipx86

These defaults are specified in a couple different places. Let's put constants somewhere and use those.

chipx86chipx86

Let's catch exceptions here, in case there's a tools_options with bad data. Actually, every configuration being processed should be wrapped …

chipx86chipx86

Missing a trailing period.

chipx86chipx86

Can we localize this while we're here?

chipx86chipx86

(dict, unused)

chipx86chipx86

(dict, optional)

chipx86chipx86

Can we use keyword arguments for this, to help with readability? It's a bit more mental work right now to …

chipx86chipx86

Let's pull the field out once.

chipx86chipx86

Let's pull out the field once.

chipx86chipx86
brennie
  1. 
      
  2. bot/reviewbot/tasks.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Show all issues

    Do we want to use logging.exception here instead?

  3. extension/reviewbotext/integration.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Show all issues

    Docstring.

  4. extension/reviewbotext/integration.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Show all issues

    Move this to the top of the method.

    1. I'd rather keep it next to where it's used.

  5. 
      
chipx86
  1. 
      
  2. Show all issues

    Can you add screenshots of the extension and integration configs, and status output?

    1. I'm going to skip the extension config because I'm currently completely redoing that. For the status output, see https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/8447/file/1319/

  3. bot/reviewbot/tasks.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    While here, it'd be nice to also include the review request/changedesc ID and diff revision (this would have been helpful when I was trying to diagnose failures a little while back).

  4. bot/reviewbot/tasks.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    Can this show all matching items, to help see where the problem is?

  5. bot/reviewbot/tasks.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Show all issues

    Can this also show the review request ID, changedesc, etc.? Helps when there's a bunch of entries in the log and you're trying to grep/sort through them.

    Also, not sure we need to capitalize "status update" (here and below).

  6. bot/reviewbot/tasks.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Show all issues

    Do we want to have this lowercase, or sentence case?

    Same below.

    It might also be nice to define these as constants somewhere, so it's easier to read through them all (and as a reference for other implementations).

    1. These should be lower case due to the way that they're shown in the status UI. I'm going to hold off on making them constants because I do plan to refactor this a bit later.

  7. bot/reviewbot/tasks.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Show all issues

    This should also include identifying information.

    Same with other exceptions below.

  8. extension/reviewbotext/admin.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    Should have a blank line here after the docstring.

  9. extension/reviewbotext/extension.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    This is going to cause the stylesheet to show up for all integration configuration pages. This is going to be more of a problem with the JavaScript file defined below (since it can easily mess with logic on other integration pages using the same field names).

    I was thinking we could use Django's form media support, but that's not actually compatible with bundles. So, I think we should update the base configuration form to allow for specifying a list of CSS and JS bundle names (as actual lists or methods that return lists, for dynamically computing based on an extension instance), and then loop through those in djblets/forms/templates/djblets_forms/admin/change_form_page.html. (That would actually allow any form to define these, which would be nice, but we'd explicitly want to support this for integration config forms).

    Then you could just list those directly on the form and get them only for that form.

  10. extension/reviewbotext/extension.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Show all issues

    Can we use integration-config.less instead, to better match the other stylesheet filenames in the products?

  11. extension/reviewbotext/forms.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Show all issues

    We should catch exceptions here and raise a ValidationError.

  12. extension/reviewbotext/integration.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    No blank line here.

  13. extension/reviewbotext/integration.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    This should use build_server_url with a local_site_reverse.

    1. Apparently get_server_url already does what I want in both cases.

  14. extension/reviewbotext/integration.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    These defaults are specified in a couple different places. Let's put constants somewhere and use those.

  15. extension/reviewbotext/integration.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    Let's catch exceptions here, in case there's a tools_options with bad data.

    Actually, every configuration being processed should be wrapped in a try/except so other configs aren't impacted.

  16. Show all issues

    Can we localize this while we're here?

    1. This is all changing a lot so I'm going to hold off on this.

  17. extension/reviewbotext/widgets.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    (dict, unused)

  18. extension/reviewbotext/widgets.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Show all issues

    (dict, optional)

  19. extension/reviewbotext/widgets.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    Can we use keyword arguments for this, to help with readability? It's a bit more mental work right now to match things up.

  20. extension/reviewbotext/widgets.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    Let's pull the field out once.

  21. extension/reviewbotext/widgets.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
     
     

    It's a bit sketchy, but it should be safe... Data's computed up-front before anything calls into value_from_datadict.

    Maybe we should catch/reraise this with something like "We did this to ourselves! What have we done..."

  22. extension/reviewbotext/widgets.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    Let's pull out the field once.

  23. 
      
david
chipx86
  1. 
      
  2. extension/reviewbotext/forms.py (Diff revisions 1 - 2)
     
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    You can just do:

    extension = ReviewBotExtension.instance
    
  3. extension/reviewbotext/integration.py (Diff revisions 1 - 2)
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    Missing a trailing period.

  4. 
      
david
chipx86
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
david
Review request changed

Status: Closed (submitted)

Change Summary:

Pushed to master (2727dd0)
Loading...