Infrastructure support is also bugged by this but have no answer yet. Again the issues were updated 4 days ago - I remember one of our community member wrote a script to dump periodically JIRA fields from github API, but I can't easily find the message. Can we get some insights from it ?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 7:50 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > This issue bugs me a lot. Pretty much all our PRs were updated 2 days ago > again :( > > I've opened the ticket to Apache Infrastructure > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18589 and I hope we can get > to the bottom of it. I believe it might be some integration we have (but I > have no access to it). I looked at other Apache repositories and they do > not have similar "updates" happening, so it must be something specific for > apache/airflow repo. > > J. > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:41 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Well. Github support is quite far from being helpful :(. We'll have to >> dig deeper on our own it seems >> >> Our apologies for the wait, and thank you for getting in touch! Due to a >> high volume of requests, we are currently experiencing much longer than >> average response times here in Support. You asked: >> >> Can you please let us know what action caused the update and what can we >> do to prevent it from happening again ? >> >> The updated_at for any object, including users, will change whenever the >> database record for that object is updated. Such database updates can >> happen for many reasons, though we don't have a complete list of those to >> share with you and your team. We wish could be of more help here as we see >> how this can be a problem for you and your team, but we don't currently >> have any other insight to share at this time. >> >> Please let us know how else we can be of help! >> >> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 1:14 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> All our PRs were updated again on Wednesday, 15th of May. I am following >>> up with Github support (they have not responded so far). >>> >>> Maybe someone happens to know what could have caused the update (some >>> automated job? bot? CI?). There is absolutely no update visible in the UI >>> of github for those. I also looked at the fork in some cases - nothing >>> changed for those either. >>> >>> Or maybe someone has contact at Github so that they verify/fix it faster >>> ? They must be able to see from the logs what happened to those PRs - from >>> our point of view looks like most of those PRs were not touched for several >>> months. >>> I responded to them with this (the ticket number is 159141). >>> >>> >>> Hello GitHub support, >>> >>> We continue to have the same problem. Pretty much all our PR were >>> updated again 4 days ago - which prevents stalebot from closing them. >>> >>> Example here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/4635 - this PR >>> was last touched 3 months ago, yet when we list it with this query >>> https://github >>> .com/apache/airflow/pulls?page=5&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A%3C2019-05-16+sort%3Aupdated-desc&utf8=%E2%9C%93 >>> it >>> shows as updated 4 days ago (i.e. on Wed 15th of May). I cannot find any >>> indicatio of a change that could have caused the update date to be bumped >>> again. >>> >>> Can you please let us know what action caused the update and what can we >>> do to prevent it from happening again ? >>> >>> J. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 3:54 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I raised an issue with Github. Let's see what they say: >>>> >>>> Jarek, >>>> >>>> Thank you for contacting GitHub Developer Support. We wanted to let you >>>> know that we've received your message and will get to it as quickly as >>>> possible. >>>> >>>> Ticket ID: 159141 >>>> >>>> We've also included a copy of your message below. >>>> >>>> If you have any additional information or would like to add anything to >>>> your initial message, now would be a great time to do so, feel free to >>>> reply to this email. If not, then rest assured your request is in the right >>>> hands :) >>>> >>>> Thank you! >>>> The GitHub Developer Support Team >>>> >>>> *Jarek Potiuk* >>>> >>>> May 6, 1:47 PM UTC >>>> >>>> Hello All, >>>> >>>> In Apache Airflow project we are trying to use stalebot to closed >>>> not-updated pull requests. And for some reason the bot does not really >>>> closed our old tickets. We checked what could be wrong and it seems that >>>> pretty much all our PRs get somehow updated regularly. >>>> >>>> Last time I checked more than 100 PRs were updated at 27th of April and >>>> yesterday I checked that 118 requests were updated on 28th of April. It >>>> does not seem that there was any action that could have caused the updates. >>>> >>>> Here are all the requests (all of them updated 27th of April): >>>> >>>> >>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A%3C2019-04-28+sort%3Aupdated-desc+ >>>> >>>> And here is an example PR that was updated 27th of April but there seem >>>> to be no action that could have caused it: >>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/4929 >>>> >>>> Can you please explain where the updates are coming from and how we can >>>> avoid the updates from happening? >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 3:39 AM Jiajie Zhong <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It's really odd. I don't know this issue. I think maybe travis-c >>>>> update our PR time at first but it don't. >>>>> >>>>> BTW, I take a look on some PR and give some example. >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/5135 create 17 days ago, last >>>>> comment 16 days ago, and travis-ci finish 17 days ago (which mean that CI >>>>> process don't touch it and change PR update time) >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/5136 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best wish. >>>>> -- Jiajie >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 4:04 >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Cc: airflowuser >>>>> Subject: Re: Proposal: Automatically mark stale PRs in github >>>>> >>>>> I believe our current stale bot configuration does not work. And I do >>>>> not >>>>> know the reason yet, which worries me :( >>>>> >>>>> There is something really strange going on with our PRs and their >>>>> updated >>>>> date. Again pretty much all the PRs were mysteriously updated on *27th >>>>> of >>>>> April - 8 days ago* (similarly as the previous case where I saw all PRs >>>>> updated on *6th of April*). >>>>> >>>>> You can see it here: >>>>> >>>>> * there are just 2(!) PRs updated before 27th of April: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A%3C2019-04-27+sort%3Aupdated-desc+ >>>>> * there are 120 (!) PRS updated before 28th of April: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A%3C2019-04-28+sort%3Aupdated-desc+ >>>>> >>>>> There is no indication that most of those impacted issues were at all >>>>> touched on 27th or 28th of April. If you look at random PRs there, >>>>> most of >>>>> them were commented latest at the beginning of April. >>>>> >>>>> Looks like 8 days ago some process has bumped the update date for most >>>>> of >>>>> our PRs. With this kind of "regular" (it seems) process of marking the >>>>> requests "updated" our stale bot is useless. >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone have an idea why it might have happened? >>>>> >>>>> I am quite puzzled by this one. I am going to open an issue to Github >>>>> support if no one has an idea what's going on. >>>>> >>>>> J. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 12:39 PM Jiajie Zhong < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > I think we should change stale-bot strategy to auto close PR, If 30 >>>>> days >>>>> > is too short for contributions, is 60 or 90 days make sence? >>>>> > >>>>> > In addition, I notice that we have some PR pass CI but none review >>>>> it or >>>>> > let a suggest on it. So could we add a bot auto remind committer if >>>>> PR pass >>>>> > CI but no one review? >>>>> > >>>>> > Or remind author if CI failed? >>>>> > >>>>> > Does it make sence? >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Best wish. >>>>> > -- Jiajie >>>>> > ________________________________ >>>>> > From: airflowuser <[email protected]> >>>>> > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 16:39 >>>>> > To: [email protected] >>>>> > Subject: Re: Proposal: Automatically mark stale PRs in github >>>>> > >>>>> > Since there are many many open PRs in the repo it can be hard for >>>>> > committers to keep track (I think that you are keeping tack by the >>>>> mailing >>>>> > list which sometimes can easily be missed). >>>>> > >>>>> > It may be easier to tack using the filter of recently updated (see >>>>> image) >>>>> > I hoped that some day this will be the default order of PRs. That way >>>>> > activity in a PR from the last page would bump it to the front. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. >>>>> > >>>>> > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>> > On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 11:32 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > > As a user/reporter on other opensource projects I would personally >>>>> see >>>>> > auto-close after 30 days to be far too aggressive to the point of >>>>> being >>>>> > unfriendly to contributions. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Unless we get markedly better at merging PRs I wouldn't want to >>>>> see us >>>>> > mark as stale so quickly. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > -ash >>>>> > > >>>>> > > > On 22 Apr 2019, at 22:07, Jarek Potiuk [email protected] >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > > > Here is a better search showing all the 103 issues - all of them >>>>> > "updated" >>>>> > > > 17 days ago >>>>> > > > >>>>> > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?page=1&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A >>>>> > <2019-04-06+sort%3Aupdated-desc >>>>> > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:06 PM Jarek Potiuk >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> > > > wrote: >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > I think current stalebot configuration will not help us for >>>>> quite a >>>>> > while >>>>> > > > > for mysterious reason. >>>>> > > > > I looked at the current PRs and somehow mysteriously vast >>>>> majority of >>>>> > > > > issues (even issues last-commented in 2017) have been updated >>>>> 17 >>>>> > days ago. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > >>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19GF1fdpYa2Tf25N3XgAEKrdXBwr9mNH9/view?usp=sharing >>>>> > > > > It looks like they were all updated on 6th of April, at 00:13 >>>>> CEST. >>>>> > > > > There are 103 such issues: >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?utf8=✓&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A> >>>>> > < >>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+updated%3A >>>>> > >>>>> > <2019-04-06+. >>>>> > > > > It would be nice to find out why this happened. >>>>> > > > > From stalebot documentation: "Any change to an issues and pull >>>>> > request is >>>>> > > > > considered an update, including comments, changing labels, >>>>> applying >>>>> > or >>>>> > > > > removing milestones, or pushing commits.". I think none of that >>>>> > happened to >>>>> > > > > most of the 103 issues (i checked a few and could not find any >>>>> trace >>>>> > of any >>>>> > > > > such changes). But maybe someone can recall something that >>>>> happened >>>>> > 6th of >>>>> > > > > April around midnight (Saturday). >>>>> > > > > Current configuration of stalebot (.github/stalebot.yaml) >>>>> says: 45 >>>>> > days >>>>> > > > > (mark as stakle) and further 7 days (closing). So those issues >>>>> will >>>>> > be >>>>> > > > > marked as stale by the stalebot around May 20th (providing >>>>> that such >>>>> > update >>>>> > > > > won't happen again). >>>>> > > > > Maybe then we can set it to 20 days + 7 for now to stale most >>>>> issues >>>>> > up >>>>> > > > > in 3 days and delete them 10 days from now? If the config will >>>>> be too >>>>> > > > > aggressive we can change it back after the 103 issues are >>>>> cleaned-up. >>>>> > > > > J. >>>>> > > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 7:54 AM airflowuser >>>>> > > > > [email protected] wrote: >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > > It's already on (or at least was on in December 2018). >>>>> > > > > > In any case here is a list of old PRs that are waiting for >>>>> > committers. >>>>> > > > > > [AIRFLOW-1956] Add parameter whether the navbar clock time >>>>> is UTC >>>>> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/2906 >>>>> > > > > > Status: ash commented but there are no further instructions. >>>>> > > > > > [AIRFLOW-620] Feature to tail custom number of logs instead >>>>> of >>>>> > rendering >>>>> > > > > > whole log >>>>> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/3992 >>>>> > > > > > Status: Pushed changed in Jan 2019 that were not reviewed >>>>> > > > > > AIRFLOW-3149 Support dataproc cluster deletion on ERROR >>>>> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/4064 >>>>> > > > > > Status: pushed changes today. CI passed. >>>>> > > > > > [AIRFLOW-1424] make the next execution date of DAGs visible >>>>> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/2460 >>>>> > > > > > Status: not sure. Waiting for ash ? >>>>> > > > > > [AIRFLOW-1488] Add the TriggeredDagRunSensor operator >>>>> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/4291 >>>>> > > > > > Status: Waiting for code review >>>>> > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>> > > > > > On Thursday, April 18, 2019 12:01 AM, Daniel Imberman < >>>>> > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > As part of our effort to reduce the PR backlog I wanted to >>>>> > proposed that >>>>> > > > > > > we set the github stale action >>>>> https://github.com/apps/stale. >>>>> > This will >>>>> > > > > > > allow us to temporarily close PRs/tickets that are not >>>>> actively >>>>> > being >>>>> > > > > > > worked on. >>>>> > > > > > > (note that this will not remove PRs, it will simply mark >>>>> PRs as >>>>> > stale to >>>>> > > > > > > make it easier for committers) >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > -- >>>>> > > > > Jarek Potiuk >>>>> > > > > Polidea https://www.polidea.com/ | Principal Software Engineer >>>>> > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >>>>> > > > > E: [email protected] >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > -- >>>>> > > > Jarek Potiuk >>>>> > > > Polidea https://www.polidea.com/ | Principal Software Engineer >>>>> > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >>>>> > > > E: [email protected] >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Jarek Potiuk >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer >>>>> >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >>>>> E: [email protected] >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Jarek Potiuk >>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer >>>> >>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >>>> E: [email protected] >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jarek Potiuk >>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer >>> >>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >>> E: [email protected] >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jarek Potiuk >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer >> >> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> E: [email protected] >> > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
