975072 - [mcMerge] mcMerge should tag its comments

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Tree Management :: Bugherder, enhancement)

Description

[Graeme McCutcheon [:graememcc]]

Per a suggestion from mats, mcMerge should tag the comments it makes, to allow Bugzilla users to filter out such comments when required.

Due to bug 969630 comment 7, this will be gated on migration to the native REST API from the BzAPI proxy.

Mats suggested the tag "landing", which is certainly a convention that seems to be gathering steam elsewhere in Bugzilla. My gut instinct is to make the tags configurable by tree, to allow some flexibility, for example tagging merges separately from individual landings.

Comment 1

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

[13:27]	KWierso	can you pre-tag a comment that you are creating via the rest api?
[13:30]	KWierso	or do I need to get the comment ID returned and then update the tags on that comment?
[13:56]	dkl	KWierso: good question. let me look
[13:59]	dkl	KWierso: unfortunately you cannot. You need to create the comment and using the comment id, make a new call to update the comment tags

So, given the above, would it be worth doubling the number of submissions (and run time) per run to:
1) Make the comments as mc-merge currently does, but grab and store the comment ids returned by the api.
2) Take those comment ids, and cycle through them all, updating the tags field to add the desired tags to each.

Comment 2

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

Bug 975339 would make this easier.

Comment 3

[Ed Morley [:emorley]]

I don't think it would double the time, since mcMerge already makes many requests per bug iirc, so this would be more like N+1. That said, another way of 'solving' this problem would be for the sheriffs to use a shared bot bugzilla account with it, and get the bugzilla template to mark based on that (bit like it does for tbplbot iirc).

Comment 4

[Gregory Szorc [:gps]]

Mark: Can we get a BMO API that allows us to create a comment + tag with a single API call? (I'd also like this for bzpost.)

Comment 5

[Mark Côté [:mcote]]

Fine by me.  Can you file a bug under Bugzilla :: WebService?

Comment 6

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

(In reply to Mark Côté [:mcote] from comment #5)
> Fine by me.  Can you file a bug under Bugzilla :: WebService?

Repurposed bug 975339 for that.

Comment 7

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

Or not. Cloned it to bug 1140565.

Comment 8

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/fx-team/rev/6bb8ca8a857c

Comment 9

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

All of the pre-requisites for this should now be landed, so it should be pretty easy to do this now. 

Do we have a preference for which tag(s) we should use for this? 

It also wouldn't be too hard to have a different (or extra) tags for handling different trees differently. (Integration branches  could be different than the merges to m-c, which can be different than branch uplifts.)

Maybe we could have one tag always present ("bugherder") that Bugzilla could then handle specially, and then have additional tags for each of the individual cases to make it clearer what happened?

Comment 10

[Ed Morley [:emorley]]

I don't have a preference - glob might?

Comment 11

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

I think the branch-specific tags suggested in comment 9 make sense. I could see value in all the various distinctions mentioned.

I don't have any strong opinions about a bugherder-specific tag, though. The only thought I have is that we should probably try to make sure that pulsebot does similar tagging when it comments in a bug.

Comment 12

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

ni?glob for comment 10

Comment 13

[:glob ✱]

(In reply to Wes Kocher (:KWierso) from comment #9)
> Do we have a preference for which tag(s) we should use for this? 
>
> Maybe we could have one tag always present ("bugherder") that Bugzilla could
> then handle specially, and then have additional tags for each of the
> individual cases to make it clearer what happened?

i don't want bugzilla to perform any special handling for user provided tags, so you're free to use any tags you want that best suits your requirements.

Comment 14

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/18f38260f260

Comment 15

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/b82bd17c5a25

Comment 16

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

Attachment: PR 34

I think these should work. Haven't really tested it with a larger push to make sure everything works together, but each individual tag seems to work in a push on its own (a push with only a single uplift to aurora adds the "uplift" tag, a single backout adds "backout", a single trunk landing adds "landing").

Comment 17

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

Comment on attachment 8666278 [details] [review]
PR 34

Actually, lets switch this to an actual review.

Comment 18

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

nice tags :)

Comment 19

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

There were some issues with the previous patch (if any push was marked as a backout, it seemed to mark every push as a backout). I think I've fixed that problem with the latest patch in the PR.

I'm going to run today's merges with this patch applied and if everything goes smoothly, I'll probably just merge the PR. Happy to get a post-landing review still when you get a chance. :)

Comment 20

[Graeme McCutcheon [:graememcc]]

Hope to clear review backlog this weekend - apologies for delay (have recently moved, and started a new job, spare time has been in short supply. I'll get quicker soon, I promise!).

Comment 21

[Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)]

Landed: https://github.com/mozilla/bugherder/commit/5cc1422ebbb4b4f398652b134f686b52d7c1bf9d

Thanks!