On 02/09/2019 17:55, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> Hi Tomas,
>
> Can this generate emails to this list instead of PRs? Processing PRs is
> expensive, both in terms of burden on our somewhat overburdened CI and in terms
> of forcing mergers to deal with a PR queue. I'm not opposed to ending up
> getting PRs but I'd like to see any system producing acceptable inputs before
> we let it at the PR queue.
That's a good idea, we could definitely start with an email report. Would give
us chance to get the configuration in shape without cluttering the PR queue. I
will post it.
Thanks for that!
I was thinking about what is the most easily consumable form to deliver this.
If we do manual review first, than perhaps single large PRs is better than
separate PRs for each upgrade, to minimize CI burden and generate less noise
for PR reviewers.
Looking at the first report I think we've got a way to go before we get to PRs. :)
In general I don't think PRs with a lot of upgrades will be useful, as they are not actionable unless 100% of the upgrades are valid. OTOH I can see how having 20 PRs for different CXF components would be annoying and would drown CI for some hours.
Something slick might be for the tool to understand the version property strings and aggregate based on that.
I see three categories of upgrades:
1) Projects that the main WF devs control, so we're doing the release and the upgrade. Or ones where the WF dev is heavily involved so even if they don't release they know about the release.
2) Other projects that are only direct deps of the WF/WF Core code bases.
3) Transitive deps.
Posting an automated PR is most useful for the #2 case. For the #3 case we'd need to go to the WF dev responsible for integrating whatever project(s) is pulling it in, say RESTEasy or CXF and get them to confirm that the upgrade is ok.
>
> I'm glad to see the discussion of configurable rules, as that's quite
> important. I wouldn't like to see anything proposed except micro version
> updates or less than micro. No minors. If that's inappropriate for some
> component then that could be adjusted for that one, but the default should be
> micros only.
Agree.
>
> I also think some sort of time delay is appropriate, probably at least a week.
> Having an automated system race with the humans working on WildFly would be
> annoying. Github already notifies us of possible upgrades to components with CVEs.
I also think long interval is better. Even maybe rather than running on regular
intervals it could be triggered manually by RC after every EAP release or
during some part of the release cycle.
Tomas
>
> Best regards,
> Brian
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:52 AM Tomas Hofman <thofman@redhat.com
> <mailto:thofman@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> would the Wildfly team be interested in (or opposed to) receiving component
> upgrade PRs, which would be created automatically when a new component version
> is released? (I'm talking about new micro/SP versions, depending on the
> component, i.e. version that could be reasonably expected to be suitable for
> consumption, without issues like breaking API changes etc.)
>
> I'm working on a tool [1], which is able to provide these PRs.
>
> The tool scans given project for dependencies, and then looks at what versions
> of those dependencies are available in Maven Central and possibly other
> repositories. I can configure rules for each dependency, that specify what
> versions should be considered viable for upgrading (e.g. for
> "org.picketlink:*"
> we would only offer new "SP" builds in the same micro, for most of the other
> dependencies we would only offer new micros, and some artifacts would perhaps
> be blacklisted). Example of this configuration is here [2].
>
> Advantages that I believe could be gained from this:
>
> * It would bring us an advantage of having new component micros tested soon in
> Wildfly, and therefore having more confidence when we need to do the same
> upgrades in EAP.
>
> * It would also help in preventing EAP running ahead of Wildfly in component
> versions, which happens occasionally. EAP release coordinator usually spots
> this problem and creates missing PR in Wildfly, but it's a manual check and
> therefore a small risk remains.
>
> * It would ensure Wildfly is consuming latest component fixes.
>
> You can review PRs generated last week in my fork of Wildfly [3].
>
> It's a work in progress, I expect the tool and it's configuration would evolve
> according to experiences we would get from using it...
>
> What do you think?
>
> [1] https://github.com/TomasHofman/maven-dependency-updater/
> [2]
> https://github.com/jboss-set/dependency-alignment-configs/blob/master/wildfly-18-minimal.json#L44
> [3] https://github.com/TomasHofman/wildfly/pulls
>
> --
> Tomas Hofman
> Software Engineer, JBoss SET
> Red Hat
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Brian Stansberry
> Manager, Senior Principal Software Engineer
> Red Hat
--
Tomas Hofman
Software Engineer, JBoss SET
Red Hat