Merge lp:~julian-edwards/launchpad/copy-archive-arch-all-bug-600621 into lp:launchpad

[Julian Edwards]

When we create copy archives for rebuild testing, sometimes only a small
subset of architectures is required to be rebuilt.

In the case where those architectures don't include the "nominatedarchindep"
architecture, then "arch-all" packages cannot be built and currently populate-
archive blows up when trying to do so since there's catch-all assertion in the
core build creation code.

This branch skips the creation of build records for those packages in this
situation when the populate-archive script runs.

[Paul Hummer (rockstar)]

<rockstar> bigjools, why do you "create copy archives for rebuild testing"? That's not a PPA thing, right?
<bigjools> rockstar: no, it's more like a main archive presented like a PPA. It allows us to copy source from somewhere else and rebuild it
<rockstar> bigjools, presented like a PPA? What's the use case there?
<bigjools> UI code re-use :)
<rockstar> (Patch looks fine, just trying to squeeze a few user stories out)
<bigjools> we didn't want it looking like the normal distro pages
<bigjools> the main use case is to find failed builds
<rockstar> Why shouldn't it look the same?
<rockstar> Er, why shouldn't it look like the normal distro pages?
<bigjools> they're overkill for this type of archive, mainly
<rockstar> bigjools, so I guess the thing I'm not understanding is what type of archive this is.
<rockstar> Is it a distro archive or a PPA or something else I don't know about.
<james_w> it's a third type
<rockstar> james_w, which is?
<rockstar> Is it like a throwaway archive just for rebuilding copies of existing packages?
<james_w> rockstar: pretty much
<rockstar> james_w, ah, okay. That parses better now.

review: Approve (code)

=== modified file 'lib/lp/soyuz/scripts/populate_archive.py'
--- lib/lp/soyuz/scripts/populate_archive.py	2010-06-16 22:16:46 +0000
+++ lib/lp/soyuz/scripts/populate_archive.py	2010-07-01 17:10:49 +0000
@@ -425,7 +425,19 @@
             """Return the source package name for a publishing record."""
             return pub.sourcepackagerelease.sourcepackagename.name
 
+        archindep_unavailable = distroseries.nominatedarchindep not in (
+            architectures)
+
         for pubrec in sources_published:
+            if (pubrec.sourcepackagerelease.architecturehintlist == "all"
+                and archindep_unavailable):
+                self.logger.info(
+                    "Skipping %s, arch-all package can't be built since %s "
+                    "is not requested" % (
+                        get_spn(pubrec),
+                        distroseries.nominatedarchindep.architecturetag))
+                continue
+
             builds = pubrec.createMissingBuilds(
                 architectures_available=architectures, logger=self.logger)
             if len(builds) == 0:

=== modified file 'lib/lp/soyuz/scripts/tests/test_populatearchive.py'
--- lib/lp/soyuz/scripts/tests/test_populatearchive.py	2010-06-22 11:14:02 +0000
+++ lib/lp/soyuz/scripts/tests/test_populatearchive.py	2010-07-01 17:10:49 +0000
@@ -44,11 +44,13 @@
 class PackageInfo:
 
     def __init__(self, name, version,
-                 status=PackagePublishingStatus.PUBLISHED, component="main"):
+                 status=PackagePublishingStatus.PUBLISHED, component="main",
+                 arch_hint=None):
         self.name = name
         self.version = version
         self.status = status
         self.component = component
+        self.arch_hint = arch_hint
 
 
 class TestPopulateArchiveScript(TestCaseWithFactory):
@@ -189,12 +191,17 @@
 
     def createSourcePublication(self, info, distroseries):
         """Create a SourcePackagePublishingHistory based on a PackageInfo."""
+        if info.arch_hint is None:
+            arch_hint = "any"
+        else:
+            arch_hint = info.arch_hint
+
         self.factory.makeSourcePackagePublishingHistory(
             sourcepackagename=self.factory.getOrMakeSourcePackageName(
                 name=info.name),
             distroseries=distroseries, component=self.factory.makeComponent(
                 info.component),
-            version=info.version, architecturehintlist='any',
+            version=info.version, architecturehintlist=arch_hint,
             archive=distroseries.distribution.main_archive,
             status=info.status, pocket=PackagePublishingPocket.RELEASE)
 
@@ -482,6 +489,30 @@
         # amd64 too
         self.checkBuilds(copy_archive, [package_info])
 
+    def testNoBuildsForArchAll(self):
+        # If we have a copy for an architecture that is not the
+        # nominatedarchindep architecture, then we don't want to create
+        # builds for arch-all packages, as they can't be built at all
+        # and createMissingBuilds blows up when it checks that.
+        package_info = PackageInfo(
+            "bzr", "2.1", status=PackagePublishingStatus.PUBLISHED,
+            arch_hint="all")
+        owner = self.createTargetOwner()
+        distroseries = self.createSourceDistribution([package_info])
+        self.factory.makeDistroArchSeries(
+            distroseries=distroseries, architecturetag="amd64",
+            processorfamily=ProcessorFamilySet().getByName("amd64"),
+            supports_virtualized=True)
+        archive_name = self.getTargetArchiveName(distroseries.distribution)
+        copy_archive = self.copyArchive(
+            distroseries, archive_name, owner,
+            architectures=["amd64"])
+        # We don't get any builds since amd64 is not the
+        # nomindatedarchindep, i386 is.
+        self.assertEqual(
+            distroseries.nominatedarchindep.architecturetag, "i386")
+        self.checkBuilds(copy_archive, [])
+
     def testMultipleArchTags(self):
         """Test copying an archive with multiple architectures.