> On Dec. 23, 2015, 9:48 a.m., Joshua Cohen wrote: > > build-support/jenkins/review_feedback.py, lines 142-143 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/41659/diff/2/?file=1174743#file1174743line142> > > > > Not sure there's anything we can do about it, but if the review has > > been committed but the RB was not marked as submitted we'll likely fail to > > apply the patch causing ReviewBot to ask if it needs to be rebased. > > > > Is there potentially a better way to message that edge case? If not, > > it's just something we need to be aware of (stay on top of closing RB's, > > and keep an eye out for erroneous "needs rebase" messages from ReviewBot).
If the concept of a patch chain were made explicit and passed around then the messaging could fork based on "Are we in a patch chain or is this a simple patch with no dependents?". For the patch chain cases we could always mention the full patch chain in the error messages, ie ``` Error applying patch chain for RB#456 [master (sha) <- RB#123 <- RB#456]. Failed to patch RB#123 on master (sha): ...[maybe include git apply stderr]... RB#123 may already have been submitted but the review is not marked as such. If so - please mark RB#123 submitted. Otherwise you may need to rebase the patch chain. ``` Versus the simple cases: ``` Error patching RB#789 on master (sha): ...[maybe include git apply stderr]... Do you need to rebase? ``` Your call whether that should happen now or later. I'd prefer later and will file an issue against myself if you agree. - John ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41659/#review111790 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Dec. 22, 2015, 2:34 p.m., John Sirois wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/41659/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Dec. 22, 2015, 2:34 p.m.) > > > Review request for Aurora, Joshua Cohen and Bill Farner. > > > Repository: aurora > > > Description > ------- > > This adds support for following `depends-on` chains of in-flight RBs to > form patch sets ultimately based off master. > > Request processing logic is factored up into a helper class that main > drives in a loop over pending RBs. > > build-support/jenkins/review_feedback.py | 246 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- > 1 file changed, 143 insertions(+), 103 deletions(-) > > > Diffs > ----- > > build-support/jenkins/review_feedback.py > ee37742c78a7b28bc1ccc687afae17f711471fc4 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41659/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Extensive testing against a local server. > > > Thanks, > > John Sirois > >
