[ovirt-devel] Re: github testing: merge with branch, or use PR HEAD?

On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 11:30 AM Michal Skrivanek <mskrivan(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On 11. 8. 2022, at 8:24, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 5:04 PM Scott Dickerson <sdickers(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:35 AM Michal Skrivanek <mskrivan(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > > > > > On 21. 7. 2022, at 9:09, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 11:30 AM Martin Perina <mperina(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 10:27 AM Michal Skrivanek <mskrivan(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > > > > > On 7. 7. 2022, at 19:28, Nir Soffer <nsoffer(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 12:26 PM Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > I was annoyed for some time now by the fact that when I used some > github-CI-generated RPMs, with a git hash in their names, I could > never find this git hash anywhere - not in my local git repo, nor in > github. Why is it so? Because, if I got it right, the default for > 'actions/checkout@v2' is to merge the PR HEAD with the branch HEAD. > See e.g. [1]: > > HEAD is now at 7bbb40c9a Merge > 026bb9c672bf46786dd6d16f4cbe0ecfa84c531d into > 35e217936b5571e9657946b47333a563373047bb > > Meaning: my patch was 026bb9c, master was 35e2179, and the generated > RPMs will have 7bbb40c9a, not to be found anywhere else. If you check > the main PR page [3], you can find there '026bb9c', but not > '7bbb40c9a'. > > (Even 026bb9c might require some effort, e.g. "didib force-pushed the > add-hook-log-console branch 2 times, most recently from c90e658 to > 66ebc88 yesterday". I guess this is the result of github discouraging > force-pushes, in direct opposite of gerrit, which had a notion of > different patchsets for a single change. I already ranted about this > in the past, but that's not the subject of the current message). > > This is not just an annoyance, it's a real difference in semantics. In > gerrit/jenkins days, IIRC most/all projects I worked on, ran CI > testing/building on the pushed HEAD, and didn't touch it. Rebase, if > at all, happened either explicitly, or at merge time. > > > I don't think that the action *rebases* the pr, it uses a merge commit > but this adds newer commits on master on top of the pr, which may > conflict or change the semantics of the pr. > > actions/checkout's default, to auto-merge, is probably meant to be > more "careful" - to test what would happen if the code is merged. I > agree this makes sense. But I personally think it's almost always ok > to test on the pushed HEAD and not rebase/merge _implicitely_. > > What do you think? > > > I agree, this is unexpected and unwanted behavior in particular for > projects that disable merge commits (e.g. vdsm). > > > merge commits are disabled for all oVirt projects as per > https://www.ovirt.org/develop/developer-guide/migrating_to_github.html > > > It should be easy to change, using [2]: > > - uses: actions/checkout@v2 > with: > ref: ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.sha }} > > > we can really just create a trivial wrapper and replace globally with e.g. > - uses: ovirt/checkout > > > > +1 > > As this needs to be included in each project separately, then I'd say > let's minimize available options to ensure maximum consistency across all > oVirt projects > > > > 1. I don't know how, and would have to learn quite a bit of github, to do > this. That's the main reason I neglected this in my TODO folder and didn't > reply yet. Perhaps someone already did something similar and would like to > take over? > > > Take a look at https://github.com/oVirt/upload-rpms-action > minus tests (I hope Janos is not looking)...that makes it a new repo, and > license, readme, and yaml file with that snippet. that's it. > > > I am hesitant about the value of this exercise, but with Martin's > encouragement decided to try, and it seems to work indeed: > > https://github.com/didib/checkout-head-sha > https://github.com/didib/test-checkout/pull/2 > > Check the output of 'git log' in the check - it shows the PR hash. > > So please create a repo (e.g. oVirt/checkout or whatever) and I'll > push a PR there. > > > https://github.com/oVirt/checkout-action > you have Write permissions there > Pushed and merged a single PR [1], updated my test repo to use it [2], tested it [3], seems ok. [1] https://github.com/oVirt/checkout-action/pull/1 [2] https://github.com/didib/test-checkout/commit/6d188ae88b8a58bde16d6a53712... [3] https://github.com/didib/test-checkout/pull/3

> > > Didn't add test code :-). > > > > 2. I already pushed (2 weeks ago) and merged (yesterday) to otopi, [1], > which simply does the above. > > 3. Scott now pushed [2], to the engine, doing the same, and I agree with > him. So am going to merge it soon, unless there are objections. If > eventually someone creates an oVirt action for this, we can always update > to use it. > > > And just to add a bit more fuel to the fire: back in the old days when > jenkins was running CI for ovirt-web-ui, there were more hoops to jump > through to get the PR head commit instead of the PR merge commit when > running builds. My solution there, and that still works with the github > actions, is: > https://github.com/oVirt/ovirt-web-ui/blob/3903152852dc8a9d44484cbdc5c80d... > > > Best regards, > > [1] https://github.com/oVirt/otopi/pull/25 > > [2] https://github.com/oVirt/ovirt-engine/pull/543 > > > I merged this yesterday, while starting writing my current reply but > before deciding to try the above :-). Can change later. > > Best regards, > -- > Didi > > > -- Didi