> 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).
> 
> John Sirois wrote:
>     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.
> 
> Joshua Cohen wrote:
>     Perfectly happy to address in a follow up as time allows. I'll commit 
> this, feel free to file an issue to track the follow up.

Thanks Josh - filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1567 to track 
this improvement.


- 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
> 
>

Reply via email to