On Tue, 2018-09-11 at 12:03 -0600, Stephen Finucane wrote: > On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 18:10 +0200, vkaba...@redhat.com wrote: > > From: Veronika Kabatova <vkaba...@redhat.com> > > > > I was trying to send the full patch for a while now, but never saw it > > arrive to > > the mailing list. Using a different email (from entirely different domain) > > didn't help, so I'm thinking it's because of the size of the message. Hence > > I'm > > now sending it again, this time split into two parts, in hopes it will > > arrive > > (feel free to merge the patches when applying). > > About time we got going on this :) I've left my review comments but I > wasn't able to run this locally and inspect the impact on the DB due to > merge conflicts. Could I ask that you address what you can and rebase > this onto the 'Convert Series-Patch relationship to 1:N' series I > posted recently, as that will impact this series significantly. If you > can, I'll apply locally and help you work through the DB issues that > I'm pretty sure we're going to see with the patch as-is right now.
I've actually gone and rebased this + reworked per the aforementioned series. You can find the end result here: https://github.com/stephenfin/patchwork/tree/review/rework-tagging-infrastructure This should be a good starting point, assuming you want to avoid having to rebase months old code yourself :) However, as expected, the current implementation hammers the DB when listing patches, so I think we need to rework this further. I'm still thinking about how to do this and would welcome input. Stephen > Cheers, > Stephen > > > The original cover letter for context follows. > > > > This patch attempts to solve GitHub issues #57 [1] and #113 [2] as well as > > some > > other things we encountered. > > > > Right now, tags are extracted from all the comments on the patch and the > > patch > > itself, and they are reextracted from all the sources every time a comment > > is > > added or removed. It makes saving slower, and might contribute to races with > > writes to database when we are parsing multiple emails at the same time. > > This > > gets even more prevalent if we want to solve the issue #113 (tags on cover > > letter should increment counters on every patch in series) -- for each added > > comment on the cover letter, we would reextract tags from all the other > > sources, > > for each patch in series; and for a change on comments related to the patch > > directly, we would need to take the tags on the cover letter and it's > > comments > > into account as well (I implemented this solution in my fork but I really > > don't like it). > > > > The current approach has several other issues as well, some of which are > > mentioned in the issue #57, eg duplicate tags are counted more times. Taking > > into account the tags on cover letters would also be easier if we could > > store > > tags against them and just query them on demand, instead of reextracting > > everything all over again. > > > > Solutions for some other things we found missing solve the issues mentioned > > above too. If we want to determine if the tag is duplicate, we need to save > > the > > associated value. Having the value would help us to use arbitrary strings as > > tags (for example links to issue trackers, like `Bugzilla: <link>` if the > > patch > > solves a known bug). The key-values approach to storing tags is mentioned > > [3], > > this email additionally mentions a comments REST API (currently worked on). > > For > > the comments API we would also find it very useful to have the tags > > extracted > > from the comments available directly so we can query for them, which means > > we > > would either need to reextract the tags on every API call, or we could store > > the comment data with the tags as they are extracted and only query them as > > needed. Altogether, we would get rid of the `patch_responses` property used > > when converting comments to mbox (we finally get all the custom tags there > > instead of only the few hardcoded ones too). > > > > TL;DR: > > Our goals: > > - Avoid tag reextraction with each added comment > > - Fix issues #57 and #113 > > - Prepare tags addition to comments in the API > > - Add tags to patch (currently returns {}) and cover letter APIs > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/getpatchwork/patchwork/issues/57 > > [2] https://github.com/getpatchwork/patchwork/issues/113 > > [3] https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/patchwork/2018-January/004741.html > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Patchwork mailing list > Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
