Merge pdbq:planned-merges-mm into pdbq:main

Proposed by Bryce Harrington
Status: Merged
Merge reported by: Bryce Harrington
Merged at revision: bf7caad13f3446e500fd458f1d9c03b494ebc9ea
Proposed branch: pdbq:planned-merges-mm
Merge into: pdbq:main
Diff against target: 450 lines (+70/-183)
4 files modified
pdbq/text.py (+2/-8)
scripts/planned-merges (+14/-144)
scripts/refresh-data.cron (+11/-8)
scripts/usmerges (+43/-23)
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Athos Ribeiro (community) Approve
PpaDevTools Developers Pending
Canonical Server Pending
Canonical Server Reporter Pending
Review via email: mp+442500@code.staging.launchpad.net

Description of the change

Some backend changes to pdbq for the merge board preparations.

The main thrust of this branch was integration of upstream data that's
now being generated by the `collect-watch` worker into the `usmerges`
backend script. collect-watch was rewritten from Bash to python this
last cycle and received a number of improvements in the process,
including switching the output format from text to JSON. So usmerges
is updated to now consume this JSON instead of custom parsing text.

Before:
  https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/RcR4KTHDGm/

After:
  https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/bN35xkR2X4/

The second thrust of this branch drops much of the "predictive
scheduling" functionality from `planned-merges`. This had proven to be
mostly inaccurate (thanks COVID era) and of limited actual value in
practice. While the improvements to collect better upstream data helps
address part of the former problem, the latter problem still trumps.
Users prefer to have the 'no-merge-available' cards left to the side and
handled manually. So instead of trying to (incorrectly) guess when
these merges might come to be, efforts will focus on automating the
detection of when they DO show up. The server team has been effective
at processing these on the fly when they come up in the housekeeping
meetings, so we can rely on that workflow instead.

Beyond that is assorted cleanup work and bug fixes to allow the merge
board data to be generated.

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
Athos Ribeiro (athos-ribeiro) wrote :

Thanks for the improvements, Bryce! I really like the changes to the strings in the merge bugs :)

I added a few comments inline below.

Also, the semantics of fe31b85d5bc2fec96d784ffa583cc1153888dc50 commit message seems to be inverted. It says "planned-merges: Use - instead of _ in JSON variables" when it seems it should say "planned-merges: Use _ instead of - in JSON variables"

Apart from the commit message, which seems to have the opposite intended meaning, everything LGTM and all my other comments are mostly nitpicks. Therefore, I am approving this one to avoid blocking you any further. Feel free to merge this before or after addressing any of my comments :)

review: Approve
Revision history for this message
Bryce Harrington (bryce) wrote :

Thanks for the review Athos! I've updated with the suggested corrections, and pushed:

Total 0 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0), pack-reused 0
To git+ssh://git.launchpad.net/pdbq
   efd2af7..da427ed main -> main

There was an error fetching revisions from git servers. Please try again in a few minutes. If the problem persists, contact Launchpad support.

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
The diff is not available at this time. You can reload the page or download it.

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches

to all changes: