> On 11. 8. 2022, at 8:24, Yedidyah Bar David <d...@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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.
https://github.com/oVirt/checkout-action <https://github.com/oVirt/checkout-action> you have Write permissions 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/MR3JXHPWRAPAIDNK2I6CFIZ6YO65RK5Y/
