Merge lp:~sil2100/ubuntu-archive-tools/sru-stop-using-v-d into lp:ubuntu-archive-tools

Proposed by Łukasz Zemczak
Status: Merged
Merged at revision: 1103
Proposed branch: lp:~sil2100/ubuntu-archive-tools/sru-stop-using-v-d
Merge into: lp:ubuntu-archive-tools
Diff against target: 95 lines (+27/-21)
3 files modified
sru-release (+2/-1)
sru-report (+3/-3)
sru-review (+22/-17)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp:~sil2100/ubuntu-archive-tools/sru-stop-using-v-d
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Brian Murray Approve
Ubuntu Package Archive Administrators Pending
Review via email: mp+325326@code.launchpad.net

Commit message

Only consider SRUs verified if they have the verification-done-SERIES tag, stop accepting verification-done as it's too confusing.

Description of the change

Only consider SRUs verified if they have the verification-done-SERIES tag, stop accepting verification-done as it's too confusing.

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
Brian Murray (brian-murray) wrote :

Please replace -SERIES with a tag - see my in-line comment.

review: Needs Fixing
1105. By Łukasz Zemczak

Use the series name in the bug message.

Revision history for this message
Brian Murray (brian-murray) wrote :

One last change, sorry!

review: Needs Fixing
Revision history for this message
Adam Conrad (adconrad) wrote :

Should we not be making this same change for verification-failed-SERIES while we're at it?

Revision history for this message
Brian Murray (brian-murray) wrote :

Using verification-failed-SERIES would make sense, but I think we should still use the verificationfailed cls for things that are tagged with 'verification-failed' or 'verification-failed-SERIES' to avoid any accidental acceptance of failed SRUs.

1106. By Łukasz Zemczak

Change the messaging as per Brian's comments.

Revision history for this message
Łukasz Zemczak (sil2100) wrote :

Thanks! Fixed. Note to self (and others): do not merge until we actually switch all the existing verification-done bugs to verification-done-$RELEASE - that's on my plate.

1107. By Łukasz Zemczak

Use verification-failed-RELEASE as well.

Revision history for this message
Brian Murray (brian-murray) wrote :

With Adam's change regarding v-failed-RELEASE a couple of other spots need changing.

review: Needs Fixing
Revision history for this message
Brian Murray (brian-murray) wrote :

Thinking about it some more I also think we should tag the bug verification-needed-RELEASE and verification-needed. In which case we should say in the comment "change the tag from verification-needed-RELEASE to verification-done-RELEASE". The generic verification-needed tag can just be ignored as it is just a method for people interested in doing SRU verification to find bugs and once all the bug tasks are closed it will no longer show up in searches.

Revision history for this message
Łukasz Zemczak (sil2100) wrote :

Ah, ok, so we want verification-failed-RELEASE then as well? Ok, will fix it up, with both verification-needed-RELEASE as well. Will have to modify the documentation then too.

1108. By Łukasz Zemczak

As per Brian's comments, we should switch to verification-needed- and verification-failed- as well.

Revision history for this message
Brian Murray (brian-murray) wrote :

I'm a bit confused by some of the tag manipulation in the latest iteration of sru-review - see my comment in-line.

1109. By Łukasz Zemczak

Actually this will work better for the evil dance.

1110. By Łukasz Zemczak

Final cleanup.

Revision history for this message
Łukasz Zemczak (sil2100) wrote :

Brian, sadly the tag manipulation needs to be slightly confusing, please see the bug attached. We can't use the tags variable since it's something we temporary create during looping in the list for removing tags.

I did clean it up a bit more though, using btags there instead. Should be less troublesome now.

Revision history for this message
Łukasz Zemczak (sil2100) wrote :

(we need this ugly bug.tags = btags to happen at each branch to make sure it's done in case one of the conditionals is executed without the others)

Revision history for this message
Brian Murray (brian-murray) wrote :

I still think we are losing one change to the bug tags and I've added an inline comment about that.

Revision history for this message
Łukasz Zemczak (sil2100) wrote :

Followed up with an inline comment. No changes are lost, all is good, explanation can be found inline.

Revision history for this message
Brian Murray (brian-murray) wrote :

I tested this with lp-shell and agree that the two tags groups both end up having the 'v-[fd]*' tag removed.

review: Approve

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
=== modified file 'sru-release'
--- sru-release 2017-05-16 21:05:50 +0000
+++ sru-release 2017-06-19 07:51:29 +0000
@@ -199,8 +199,9 @@
199 print('Copied to %s-updates' % release)199 print('Copied to %s-updates' % release)
200 if not options.no_bugs:200 if not options.no_bugs:
201 sru_bugs = match_srubugs(options, versions['changesfile'])201 sru_bugs = match_srubugs(options, versions['changesfile'])
202 tag = 'verification-needed-%s' % release
202 for sru_bug in sru_bugs:203 for sru_bug in sru_bugs:
203 if 'verification-needed' not in sru_bug.tags:204 if tag not in sru_bug.tags:
204 update_sru_bug(sru_bug, pkg)205 update_sru_bug(sru_bug, pkg)
205206
206 # -proposed -> -security207 # -proposed -> -security
207208
=== modified file 'sru-report'
--- sru-report 2017-04-21 04:54:56 +0000
+++ sru-report 2017-06-19 07:51:29 +0000
@@ -334,10 +334,10 @@
334 if ('kernel-tracking-bug' in t or334 if ('kernel-tracking-bug' in t or
335 'kernel-release-tracking-bug' in t):335 'kernel-release-tracking-bug' in t):
336 cls += 'kerneltracking '336 cls += 'kerneltracking '
337 if 'verification-failed' in t:337 if ('verification-failed' in t or
338 'verification-failed-%s' % release in t):
338 cls += ' verificationfailed'339 cls += ' verificationfailed'
339 elif ('verification-done' in t or340 elif 'verification-done-%s' % release in t:
340 'verification-done-%s' % release in t):
341 cls += ' verified'341 cls += ' verified'
342 removable = False342 removable = False
343 elif b in broken_bugs:343 elif b in broken_bugs:
344344
=== modified file 'sru-review'
--- sru-review 2017-04-27 20:32:35 +0000
+++ sru-review 2017-06-19 07:51:29 +0000
@@ -299,23 +299,27 @@
299 'Is there anything left to sponsor?' % num)299 'Is there anything left to sponsor?' % num)
300300
301 if not sourcepkg or 'linux' not in sourcepkg:301 if not sourcepkg or 'linux' not in sourcepkg:
302 # this dance is needed due to
303 # https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpadlib/+bug/254901
302 btags = bug.tags304 btags = bug.tags
303 for t in ('verification-failed', 'verification-done'):305 for t in ('verification-failed', 'verification-failed-%s' % release,
306 'verification-done', 'verification-done-%s' % release):
304 if t in btags:307 if t in btags:
305 # this dance is needed due to
306 # https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpadlib/+bug/254901
307 tags = btags308 tags = btags
308 tags.remove(t)309 tags.remove(t)
309 bug.tags = tags310 bug.tags = tags
311
312 if 'verification-needed' not in btags:
313 btags.append('verification-needed')
314 bug.tags = btags
315
316 needed_tag = 'verification-needed-%s' % release
317 if needed_tag not in btags:
318 btags.append(needed_tag)
319 bug.tags = btags
320
310 bug.lp_save()321 bug.lp_save()
311322
312 if 'verification-needed' not in btags:
313 # this dance is needed due to
314 # https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpadlib/+bug/254901
315 tags = btags
316 tags.append('verification-needed')
317 bug.tags = tags
318 bug.lp_save()
319323
320 text = ('Hello %s, or anyone else affected,\n\n' %324 text = ('Hello %s, or anyone else affected,\n\n' %
321 re.split(r'[,\s]', bug.owner.display_name)[0])325 re.split(r'[,\s]', bug.owner.display_name)[0])
@@ -346,14 +350,15 @@
346 text += ('Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other '350 text += ('Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other '
347 'Ubuntu users.\n\nIf this package fixes the bug for you, '351 'Ubuntu users.\n\nIf this package fixes the bug for you, '
348 'please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the '352 'please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the '
349 'package you tested, and change the tag from verification-needed '353 'package you tested and change the tag from '
350 'to verification-done. If it does not fix the bug for you, '354 'verification-needed-%s to verification-done-%s.'
351 'please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to '355 'If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment '
352 'verification-failed. In either case, details of your testing '356 'stating that, and change the tag to verification-failed-%s. In '
353 'will help us make a better decision.\n\nFurther information '357 'either case, details of your testing will help us make a better '
354 'regarding the verification process can be found at '358 'decision.\n\nFurther information regarding the verification '
359 'process can be found at '
355 'https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . '360 'https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . '
356 'Thank you in advance!')361 'Thank you in advance!' % (release, release, release))
357 bug.newMessage(content=text, subject='Please test proposed package')362 bug.newMessage(content=text, subject='Please test proposed package')
358363
359364

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches