[Buildbot-devel] Adding comments to builds

[Ben Hearsum]

Brian Warner wrote:
>>> We should change the Waterfall display to add a link to the per-Build box
>> This part has already been taken care of. Tinderbox has some fancy-schmancy
>> CSS/Javascript to do this. Clicking on any of the 'L' links at
>> http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showbuilds.cgi?tree=MozillaTest will give you an
>> example of this. I think it's a bad idea to require Javascript though, I will
>> be putting that functionality on the BUILDER/builds/NUMBER page as well.
> 
> That's pretty slick. Yeah, having the popup if javascript happens to be
> enabled, but being able to go through the per-build page to add comments
> regardless, feels like the right approach to me. I tend to leave javascript
> turned off (through the wonderful NoScript extension) unless the site really
> makes it worth my while, so I'm keen on web interfaces that retain the full
> functionality (albeit not quite as nicely presented) when used without
> javascript.
> 
> If there are comments on a particular build, and javascript is turned off, it
> would be nice to make it obvious that there is something worth reading about
> that build. Maybe add the "C" link to the BuildBox if there are comments
> present.. a link that people with javascript enabled would probably never
> use, because they'd always use the link in the popup instead?
> 

I ended pulling the Javascript at the last minute because it just didn't fit
in well. The comment section I did up on the builder/NN/build page fits in
with the rest of the system much better.

>>> From there on out, it's all a question of UI. Probably a little "C" link
>>> on the yellow Build box (perhaps "c" if no comments have been made yet),
>>> that takes you to a page with a text form that's been pre-filled with the
>>> previous comments.
>> I'm not sure if I understand correctly, is the intention of pre-filling the
>> form so that the previous comments are not lost? If that's the case perhaps
>> it would be better to getProperty("comments") and append the new one to
>> that.
> 
> Yeah, I was assuming that the getProperty("comments") for each build is a
> single string, and people are editing it in-place (like a wiki page). Making
> it an append-only log of comments is probably a better way to avoid
> accidentally losing comments.
> 

Yep, this is what I did. Works great!

>>> It might be reasonable to add a Waterfall argument that sets the mode: no
>>> comments, read-only comments, and read-write comments. This way you could
>>> have an internal Waterfall page (which allowed Force Build and writing
>>> comments) and an external one (which didn't allow Force Build and gave
>>> read-only access to comments).
>> A new Waterfall argument seems appropriate. As I envision it now there will
>> be some sort of icon beside the 'Build NN' link when there is comments. The
>> 'add comment' page will be accessible through the pop-up dialog or
>> BUILDER/builds/NN page.
> 
> Sounds good. Let's call the Waterfall argument 'comments=', and say that True
> means read-write, False means no comments at all, and "read-only" means just
> that.
> 

Added!

> For the group as a whole: any feelings on what the default value of this
> argument ought to be? If your upgraded Waterfalls suddenly acquired
> user-writable comments, would you be concerned about graffiti?
> 

I've set the default to "read-only" for now. I don't think it needs to be on
by read/write by default. If someone really wants to add comments they can
easily turn it on.