Closed Bug 1248883 Opened 9 years ago Closed 9 years ago

missing ${platform}_info.txt files

Categories

(Release Engineering :: Release Automation: Other, defect)

defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(firefox47 fixed)

RESOLVED FIXED
Tracking Status
firefox47 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: rail, Assigned: rail)

References

Details

Attachments

(2 files)

https://dxr.mozilla.org/build-central/search?q=_info.txt&redirect=false&case=false and they may be used by other external consumers (socorro?).
This is how we generate those files: https://dxr.mozilla.org/build-central/source/buildbotcustom/process/factory.py#2624-2653 We can probably move this logic to either makefiles or mozharness.
mshal, do you have any preferences on how to implement this?
Flags: needinfo?(mshal)
Can we confirm that they are actually used before we cargo cult this forward? Even if they are used, maybe there's a simpler thing for consumers to use?
AIUI, they are currently used by socorro to discover which buildids are valid release builds. Do we have a better way of providing this information?
Something tells me that using "ftp platforms" (mac, not macosx64) would be easier in makefiles. Then beetmover can rename them and copy to the candidates directory.
See also bug 1153352 for a Socorro API to submit to (not implemented). catlee, peterbe, and myself have had several conversations about this but not converged on a solution.
Q&D patch pushed to date: https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/date/rev/cf3953635ba2 Need to adjust the beetmover templates too
Flags: needinfo?(mshal)
Assignee: nobody → rail
Attached patch info_make.diffSplinter Review
worked fine on date
Attachment #8721079 - Flags: review?(mshal)
Attached patch info_beets.diffSplinter Review
Attachment #8721081 - Flags: review?(jlund)
Attachment #8721081 - Flags: review?(jlund) → review+
Comment on attachment 8721079 [details] [diff] [review] info_make.diff LGTM. Are we eventually planning to use the existing json file rather than this separate txt file? If so, do we have a bug on file for that?
Attachment #8721079 - Flags: review?(mshal) → review+
(In reply to Michael Shal [:mshal] from comment #11) > Comment on attachment 8721079 [details] [diff] [review] > info_make.diff > > LGTM. Are we eventually planning to use the existing json file rather than > this separate txt file? If so, do we have a bug on file for that? I filed bug 1249753
See Also: → 1249753
See Also: → 1249993
Comment on attachment 8721079 [details] [diff] [review] info_make.diff This patch is required by release promotion. I'd like to uplift this to aurora to let it be in beta automatically. It's been on m-c for a week so far and looks sane. The risk is very low, because it adds a new file, without changing existing ones.
Attachment #8721079 - Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Comment on attachment 8721079 [details] [diff] [review] info_make.diff Sounds good to me, I'm excited for release promotion.
Attachment #8721079 - Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
Rail, both patches here?
Flags: needinfo?(rail)
(In reply to Liz Henry (:lizzard) (needinfo? me) from comment #19) > Rail, both patches here? I'll land the second with NPOTB a=release :) because it doesn't affect anything except release promotion
Flags: needinfo?(rail)
Comment on attachment 8721079 [details] [diff] [review] info_make.diff The same thing for ESR 45, so we are ready for release promotion
Attachment #8721079 - Flags: approval-mozilla-esr45?
Comment on attachment 8721079 [details] [diff] [review] info_make.diff This was landed when I grafted patches a while ago apparently.
Attachment #8721079 - Flags: approval-mozilla-esr45?
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: