HI Alex,

I think we're getting closer ... 

The maven reproducible build mechanism and the release plugin all work with a 
standard time format:
  
<project.build.outputTimestamp>2020-03-24T19:00:04Z</project.build.outputTimestamp></properties>
The format is:
yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss'Z'
So it actually doesn't contain time-zone information.

Also did I do a little more searching in the compiler code and sort of 
identical code was found in 9 places.

I will try tomorrow if it helps setting the time-zone to UTC for every place 
where the getSWFMetadataDate and getSWFMetadataDateFormat are used in a 
SimpleDateFormat. I would assume if no timezone information is provided, the 
SimpleDateFormat assumes it's the VMs default one. Now I could imagine that if 
you call getTime this sort of is influenced by this.

Now after a second full day of working on this I just want to go to bed ;-)

Good night to you all,

Chris



Am 24.03.20, 20:57 schrieb "Alex Harui" <[email protected]>:

    Ok, I think I have a better idea of what code you are referring to.
    
    I can look into it with more detail later, but I recall thinking that there 
could be a problem during the weeks the world is not synced on "daylight 
savings time".
    
    Over on the US west coast, I was typing in dates like: "02/25/20 14:51 
-0800".  The CI server is somewhere in the US, IIRC.  And IIRC, I had to use 
""02/25/20 14:51 -0700" instead (or maybe the other way around) during the 
period of time the US was changing from "PST" to "PDT" or back.
    
    So try adding or subtracting a zone from the date you are feeding into 
Jenkins and see what happens.
    
    HTH,
    -Alex
    
    
    On 3/24/20, 12:34 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]> wrote:
    
        Hi Alex,
        
        Well it seems as if the "mod" attribute in the catalog.xml is generated 
from the zipfile entry 
                    xmlWriter.writeAttribute(ATTR_MOD, 
String.valueOf(file.getLastModified()));
        
        And in the SWCWriter there's this code that cuts off the timezone, you 
even wrote a comment on it
        
                if (metadataDate != null)
                {
                    // TODO: Perhaps parsing without modification and then 
serializing with a default timezone is the more solid approach.
                    // strip off timezone.  Zip format doesn't store timezone
                    // and the goal is to have the same date and time regardless
                    // of which timezone the build machine is using.
                    int c = metadataDate.lastIndexOf(' ');
                    if(c != -1) {
                        metadataDate = metadataDate.substring(0, c);
                    }
                    c = metadataFormat.lastIndexOf(' ');
                    if(c != -1) {
                        metadataFormat = metadataFormat.substring(0, c);
                    }
                        try {
                                SimpleDateFormat sdf = new 
SimpleDateFormat(metadataFormat);
                        sdf.setTimeZone(TimeZone.getTimeZone("UTC"));
                                fileDate = sdf.parse(metadataDate).getTime();
                        } catch (ParseException e) {
                                // TODO Auto-generated catch block
                                e.printStackTrace();
                        } catch (IllegalArgumentException e1) {
                                e1.printStackTrace();
                        }
                }
        
        So in general it doesn’t matter what timezone is in the string input, 
it was cut off anyway.
        I added the line:
        
                        sdf.setTimeZone(TimeZone.getTimeZone("UTC"));
        
        But it seems I still have the same issue with the con
        
        re-inspecting the code I noticed, it's probably just the timestamp used 
in the zip file metadata ... not that used in the catalog.xml.
        Will have another look at why I'm having this 36 offset. ... I just did 
a little math and it's exactly one hour off ... 
        
        The difference of all tags is: 
        3600000 milliseconds, which is exactly one hour. So the timestamps on 
the CI server are exactly one hour ahead of the builds we do in Europe.
        
        This is currently the last issue preventing us from finishing the steps 
for the typedefs.
        
        Do you have any idea? ... Anything with the US being Summer-Time and us 
still on Winter-Time?
        
        Perhaps you could try executing this command in the typedefs:
        
        ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_007 -Drelease.version=0.9.7 
-DskipTests=true
        
        Would be interesting if this succeeds for you. 
        
        Well actually the library.swf in the swc seems to have a "net" Object 
in the locally built version and a "http" Object instead on the CI 
Server-Version.
        
        Currently I'm trying to fix the timestamp version and address the other 
problem after that's solved.
        
        Chris
        
        
        
        Am 24.03.20, 20:08 schrieb "Alex Harui" <[email protected]>:
        
            Good to see progress.
            
            Re timestamps:  I’m not quite sure what you are running into.
            
            The builds were taking a time that included a timezone.  Here's 
some output from recent builds:
            
                 [java] -metadata.date=02/25/20 14:51 +0000
                 [java] -metadata.dateFormat=MM/dd/yy HH:mm Z
            
            So I'm not sure how the timezone got lost on what you are seeing.  
The RM was supposed to type in something like "02/25/20 14:51 +0000".  The 
prompts on the Jenkins job were supposed to hint that.
            
            HTH,
            -Alex
            
            On 3/24/20, 7:47 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]> 
wrote:
            
                Hi Alex,
                I finally said Chris to try it myself, so going with that now :)
                
                El mar., 24 mar. 2020 a las 15:40, Christofer Dutz (<
                [email protected]>) escribió:
                
                > Hi Alex,
                >
                > I added a call to set a fixed timezone to the 
simpledateformat in the
                > SWCWriter ... could you please review this?
                >
                > Chris
                >
                >
                >
                > Am 24.03.20, 15:26 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" 
<[email protected]>:
                >
                >     Hi all,
                >
                >     so today we made progress ... not only did we fix the 
version skipping
                > we observed yesterday. For this the commands done manually in 
the 001a step
                > had to be changed.
                >
                >     Now we managed to get the compiler part reproducible, but 
not so much
                > the typedef part.
                >     We are observing that the same timestamp is passed in to 
the build
                > when building the release on the ci server and when building 
the release
                > locally. However the timestamps have a strange constant 
offset 36 in two
                > digits of the timestamp in the catalog.xml
                >
                >     1585054125000 on the CI server
                >     1585057725000 locally
                >
                >     I am assuming that perhaps there is time-zone information 
leaking into
                > the parsing of the date as we are using a date-format without 
time-zone
                > information.
                >
                >     I would assume that Alex, perhaps you could have a look 
at what's
                > happening in the SWCWriter constructor, where the parsing of 
the timestamp
                > is implemented.
                >
                >     Thanks,
                >
                >     Chris
                >
                >
                >     Am 24.03.20, 09:36 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <
                > [email protected]>:
                >
                >         Hi Alex,
                >
                >         I had another look ... I think the version skips one 
is in step
                > 001a ...
                >         There the job checks out develop, applies the update 
to the new
                > version of the build tools and jburg types, but then this is 
pushed and
                > then again to the release branch (hereby overwriting the old
                > release-branch) ... I'll try out a way with cherry picking 
the change from
                > develop into the release branch. Unfortunately I haven't been 
able to find
                > where the text in the emails comes from ...
                >
                >         I'm talking about the order of the constants in the 
class
                > ProblemID. I forced that to be sorted now. That's why we have 
to re-release
                > the build tools.
                >
                >         Chris
                >
                >         Am 24.03.20, 08:14 schrieb "Alex Harui" 
<[email protected]
                > >:
                >
                >             Re: credentials:  Feel free to disable the 
credential store.
                >  I did not have to both login and go through 2fa to Git Push. 
 There is
                > some long password/token/credential/hash-like thing you get 
when you sign
                > up with Apache Git that seems to work when you use it as a 
password.
                >
                >             Re: the utils steps.  I just looked and it 
appears that
                > compiler-jburg-types and compiler-build-tools are no longer
                > child/submodules of the root pom.xml in royale-compiler.  So 
now I get how
                > why the development version won't get bumped up twice.  I 
think the way it
                > was working may be that the updated dev version never got 
pushed to
                > develop.  If you are satisfied with that setup, that's fine 
with me.  So
                > then it might make more sense to get rid of 1a and create a 
whole new set
                > of steps for each of compiler-jburg-types and 
compiler-build-tools.  If I
                > understand correctly, those new steps would run mvn 
release:branch, mvn
                > release:prepare and mvn release:perform in 
compiler-jburg-types or
                > compiler-build-tools, stopping if there are interim pushes 
that need to be
                > done, then start their own vote emails by copying other CI 
steps.
                >
                >             I use a Mac and thought I got all binaries to 
match from the
                > .  I'm not sure what properties you are referring to.
                >
                >             I'm done for tonight.  Will catch up in my 
morning.
                >
                >             -Alex
                >
                >             On 3/23/20, 11:15 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <
                > [email protected]> wrote:
                >
                >                 Good morning all,
                >
                >                 well I didn't disable anythig as I didn't 
want to break
                > anything. So I thought before simply changing something I'd 
ask first.
                >                 So I would consider it a "bug" that it's 
there and when we
                > continue today, we'll try to find out and disable the thing.
                >                 However I would assume then the RM will not 
only have to
                > do his usual login but also the 2fa thing at every step too, 
correct?
                >
                >                 And, just a kindly meant question ... would 
it be possible
                > to reply at the top instead of inline? I sort of have missed 
several
                >                 Of your Inline comments in the past as at 
least in my mail
                > client it's hard to spot what's mine and what's not.
                >                 (I could start counting spaces)
                >
                >                 (I first missed this question of yours ... 
but discovered
                > it after counting spaces ;-) )
                >
                >                 Well to release the build tool with maven you 
would simply
                > do the:
                >                 mvn release:prepare
                >                 mvn release:perform
                >                 for each of them, then adjust the main pom 
and do the mvn
                > release:branch ... then prepare and perform after that.
                >
                >                 Currently also jburg types and the 
build-tools are sort of
                > released in parallel. With maven you would simply release 
only the module
                > that's needed to be released. In our case build-tools would 
have been
                > enough.
                >
                >                 Speaking of build-tools ... are you possibly 
using Windows
                > as OS on your system? Just asking because the build-tools 
seem to have
                > always generated a sorted set of properties on windows and an 
unsorted one
                > on Mac (Seems to be differences in the way the filesystem 
works) ... in
                > that case it would have been impossible to have a release 
manager not using
                > Java 8 on a Windows machine. (My changes recently never 
touched this)
                >
                >                 Chris
                >
                >
                >                 Am 23.03.20, 22:59 schrieb "Alex Harui"
                > <[email protected]>:
                >
                >
                >
                >                     On 3/23/20, 2:29 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <
                > [email protected]> wrote:
                >
                >                         Hi Alex,
                >
                >                         sorry for the confusion ,... I meant 
the 1a ...
                > the one if you build the utils too.
                >
                >                         And regarding the credentials: 
Something must have
                > changes as I have never seen that gui thingy pop up before 
and as soon as
                > you login, it saves them in the password manager thingy of 
windows.
                >
                >                     Did you try to disable the password 
manager?
                >
                >                         It is true that I took those two out 
of the main
                > maven reactor, but that's actually a good practice. In plc4x 
we setup a
                > dedicated git repo for releasing these build tools. I have 
never seen any
                > good coming from the old setup (I know ... I did it, but I 
learnt a lot).
                >
                >                     I am not opposed to moving those two 
projects to a
                > different repo.  It would require that we have a truly 
separate release
                > vote for them, so more work in that regard, and the Ant build 
would have to
                > be adjusted to download those jars.  I'm not sure now is the 
time to make
                > that change, but maybe.  Let's see what others think.
                >
                >                         Regarding the banches ... we did a 
git status
                > after step 001a (the utils step) and indeed it was done on 
develop. As the
                > maven release isn't doing any selecting and switching of 
branches it must
                > have always been this way. If not the utils release versions 
would only be
                > updated in the release branch and not develop. I couldn't 
find any cherry
                > picking of commits in the process.
                >
                >                         Well in the end the steps are way 
more complicated
                > than I would be doing on my local machine. Especially this 
tolling around
                > checking out branches and tagging and pushing is pretty 
complicated, in my
                > opinion. Especially as most the stuff is fully automated.
                >
                >                     The Maven Release plugin automatically 
pushes and
                > signs, so yes, the CI steps are more complicated because they 
have to
                > continue on, but if there is a better way to stop and 
continue, let us know
                > what that is.  But I was mainly addressing the branch/version 
issue for
                > those two "utils" projects.  What would be the correct set of 
Maven Release
                > commands to manage that locally without updating the develop 
version
                > twice?  Or maybe as you mention above, there really is no 
good way and a
                > separate repo is essentially the only way.
                >
                >                         I think we managed to get the steps 
1-4 (including
                > the utils stuff) working again, while keeping the cleanup I 
did a while
                > ago.
                >
                >                         I hope tomorrow it'll be simper to 
adjust the
                > typedefs and the framework part.
                >
                >                         One thing we did notice however that 
even after
                > addressing the memory issues, the build sometimes simply 
stuck and the
                > build wouldn't continue.
                >                         In these cases simply killing the job 
(and the
                > processes on the CI server) didn't really help much ... we 
then had to
                > reboot the machine in order to continue. I think we rebooted 
the thing 5-6
                > times today.
                >
                >                     My experience was that the Jenkins slave 
would
                > occasionally disconnect and the job would fail right away.  
Rebooting
                > didn’t help.  I didn't see it get stuck so unfortunately you 
are seeing
                > something new that I haven't seen.  Did you search the 
internet to see if
                > anyone else reported something similar with Jenkins?
                >
                >                         Signing off for today,
                >
                >                         Chris
                >
                >
                >                         Am 23.03.20, 21:38 schrieb "Alex 
Harui"
                > <[email protected]>:
                >
                >                             Re: credentials:  Does that mean 
that the git
                > config is set to use the credential manager?  If so, maybe 
that should be
                > turned off?  When I did the release, I had to type my 
password many times.
                > Not sure what Piotr's experience was.
                >
                >                             Re: Branches:    I don't remember 
what the
                > steps are.  I didn't think there was a 1b, I don't see it in 
my emails,
                > just a 1a that did both compiler-jburg-types and 
compiler-build-tools.
                > Assuming 1a and 1b now reference these two projects, the 
thing to keep in
                > mind is that they are optional projects and so 1a (and 
probably 1b) won't
                > be run for every release.  So, IMO, the branch should be made 
for the main
                > projects in royale-compiler.
                >
                >                             But if the changes you made 
effectively change
                > the way the poms are run (when there was a -utils profile for 
those two
                > projects, the main pom still got loaded and that may not be 
true now), then
                > the set of steps may need to test for existence of the branch 
or something
                > like that, not sure.
                >
                >                             In the end, the steps are just 
what you would
                > run on your local computer to fill the nexus staging repo, 
but broken into
                > discrete steps at each point Maven would normally push or 
sign.  If you
                > haven’t, it might be worth just running Maven locally to fill 
a staging
                > repo with and without the jburg-types and build-tools 
projects to see how
                > to control when Maven makes branches and updates versions.  
Then come back
                > and break that down into steps on the CI server.
                >
                >                             HTH,
                >                             -Alex
                >
                >                             On 3/23/20, 12:30 PM, "Christofer 
Dutz" <
                > [email protected]> wrote:
                >
                >                                 Another thing we just 
discovered.
                >
                >                                 The current setup seems to 
mess up the
                > branches:
                >                                 - 001 creates the branch and 
updates
                > develop rel = 0.9.7-SNAPSHOT, develop = 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT
                >                                 - 001b updates DEVELOP and 
not the release
                > branch
                >                                 - 002 pushes develop to the 
release-branch
                > hereby bumping the release branch to the next version rel = 
0.9.8-SNAPSHOT,
                > develop = 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT
                >
                >                                 If the 001b changes would 
have been done
                > in the release branch, develop would still be using the old 
version.
                >
                >                                 So I would propose to change 
the order of
                > 001 and 001b to "release" the build tools before branching.
                >
                >                                 And I would propose to fix 
002 to work on
                > the right branch. As I could see in maven central you have 
been releasing
                > only even version number so I assume this problem exists for 
quite some
                > time now.
                >
                >                                 Chris
                >
                >                                 Am 23.03.20, 20:12 schrieb 
"Carlos Rovira"
                > <[email protected]>:
                >
                >                                     Hi,
                >                                     we just saw that windows 
stores a
                > personal access token in Windows
                >                                     Crendetials, so the RM is 
responsible
                > to remove it when finish all the
                >                                     operations.
                >
                >
                >                                     El lun., 23 mar. 2020 a 
las 19:44,
                > Alex Harui (<[email protected]>)
                >                                     escribió:
                >
                >                                     >
                >                                     >
                >                                     > On 3/23/20, 11:32 AM, 
"Christofer
                > Dutz" <[email protected]>
                >                                     > wrote:
                >                                     >
                >                                     >     Hi Alex,
                >                                     >
                >                                     >     I did check and I 
didn't
                > directly find any .git .ssh or whatsoever
                >                                     > directories ... do you 
have an Idea
                > where that would be saved on windows?
                >                                     >     The commits are 
authorized by
                > Carlos and it's his RDP connection,
                >                                     > that's why I'm asking 
if there is
                > any RDP magic going on. I didn't see him
                >                                     > entering anything 
anywhere and he
                > said he didn't do it before.
                >                                     >
                >                                     > I don't know for sure, 
but here's a
                > few links:
                >                                     >
                >                                     >
                >                                     >
                > 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F46878457%2Fadding-git-credentials-on-windows&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C8f87803163ef4c03a9c808d7d02a6da1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637206752966088690&amp;sdata=oEh1Qw%2FT7ru8fAlZm7%2BBV9sR94hwN7Q2jTwXFdXYCLQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
                >                                     >
                >                                     >
                > 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit-scm.com%2Fbook%2Fen%2Fv2%2FGit-Tools-Credential-Storage&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C8f87803163ef4c03a9c808d7d02a6da1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637206752966088690&amp;sdata=6dUMmS2JOhrYmqIiDbxrV0HUaRpzxVip9v4VDQtOJfM%3D&amp;reserved=0
                >                                     >
                >                                     > I'm wondering if Carlos 
can remember
                > if he did.anything like that back
                >                                     > when he wrote this:
                >                                     >
                >                                     >
                > 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread.html%2F8ae38cea0c736418b432b2353f967161c4f8448261a3bdce390e8c46%2540%253Cdev.royale.apache.org%253E&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C8f87803163ef4c03a9c808d7d02a6da1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637206752966088690&amp;sdata=VmN%2FQQbDVvR2LRzBxwlAnwCS7pWH3IFKDXj5Je9w25Q%3D&amp;reserved=0
                >                                     >
                >                                     > As I replied back then, 
we shouldn't
                > have GPG signing on the CI Server,
                >                                     > and hopefully no other 
credentials
                > got added either.
                >                                     >
                >                                     > HTH,
                >                                     > -Alex
                >                                     >
                >                                     > PS: I'm purposefully 
not looking
                > myself so as not to accidentally boot
                >                                     > someone off the RDP 
connection.
                >                                     >
                >                                     >
                >                                     >
                >                                     >
                >                                     >
                >                                     >
                >                                     >
                >
                >                                     --
                >                                     Carlos Rovira
                >
                > 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C8f87803163ef4c03a9c808d7d02a6da1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637206752966098683&amp;sdata=HJm%2FFSmKHKlD435iNQYouiMKu4wsv26j%2FCIP%2BjT6SIQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                
                -- 
                Carlos Rovira
                
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C8f87803163ef4c03a9c808d7d02a6da1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637206752966098683&amp;sdata=HJm%2FFSmKHKlD435iNQYouiMKu4wsv26j%2FCIP%2BjT6SIQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
                
            
            
        
        
    
    

Reply via email to