Add a `moz-phab uplift` command
Categories
(Conduit :: moz-phab, enhancement, P2)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
People
(Reporter: sheehan, Assigned: sheehan)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
(Keywords: conduit-triaged)
Attachments
(4 files)
Request a local revision be posted to Phabricator as an uplift.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 1•4 years ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 2•4 years ago
|
||
We should have the MPL at the top of all files that can
support the license.
Depends on D131981
| Assignee | ||
Comment 3•4 years ago
|
||
Depends on D131982
| Assignee | ||
Comment 4•4 years ago
|
||
Add a moz-phab uplift command to send commits to Phabricator
to be reviewed as uplift requests. The interface is similar to
moz-phab submit, in that a revset/commit range is specified
for submission, but the user must also pass a --train argument
with a Phabricator callsign indicating the target uplift train
to submit to. The target repos are any repository on Phabricator
with an uplift project tag associated with the repository. If the
repository has an appropriate named tag/bookmark/branch associated
with the passed train, a new set of revisions will be created via
rebase and the new commits will be submitted for uplift. When amending
the commits, the Differential Revision of the original revision
is moved to Original Revision and the uplift revision is set as
the Differential Revision.
To keep uplifting behaviour consistent with regular submissions the
uplift command re-uses almost all of the logic of submit, with
a few amendments that check the value of args.command to determine
if the uplift specific code paths should be taken. The submit
CLI argument parser is turned into a function so it can be re-used
by the submit parser.
A conduit function call is added to return repositories with an
associated tag, in our case the uplift tag. We add a few VCS specific
functions to associate a callsign with a named branch/symbol and to
perform the automatic uplifting functionality.
TODOS
- no telemetry
- if rebase fails we continue and submit anyways, probably wrong
- needs unit tests
Depends on D131983
| Assignee | ||
Updated•4 years ago
|
Updated•4 years ago
|
| Assignee | ||
Comment 5•4 years ago
|
||
This has landed in the repo, and we'll track getting it out to users in bug 1754057.
Description
•