On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 5:04 PM Scott Dickerson <sdick...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:35 AM Michal Skrivanek <mskri...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 21. 7. 2022, at 9:09, Yedidyah Bar David <d...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 11:30 AM Martin Perina <mper...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 10:27 AM Michal Skrivanek <mskri...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > On 7. 7. 2022, at 19:28, Nir Soffer <nsof...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 12:26 PM Yedidyah Bar David <d...@redhat.com> >>>> > 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. 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/3903152852dc8a9d44484cbdc5c80de45774f090/automation/build.sh#L23-L33 > >> >> 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 _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@ovirt.org Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/privacy-policy.html oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/ List Archives: https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/devel@ovirt.org/message/HC5Q6TPZGIUVVCMADYPY4QETJSZZLKF2/
