[Buildbot-devel] Force scheduler accepting patch
h.sorby at auckland.ac.nz
Wed Oct 17 03:43:31 UTC 2012
On 10/17/2012 04:21 PM, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Hugh Sorby <h.sorby at auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>> Sure I'll give it a shot. I'm not too fimiliar with the codebase especially
>> anything twisted related. I would like to setup the testing so I can do
>> things like create fake svn commits are there any docs on that, currently I
>> use actual svn commits which fills up the logs with lots of 'testing'
>> commits. Up till now I have had only a user experience with buildbot and
>> made some minor mods to suit my needs.
> As you experiment, I'd recommend setting up a local svn repository
> (using svnadmin). For the tests that are included within Buildbot, we
> have systems in place to "fake" svn so that the tests can run even
> when svn is not installed, and so that the tests do not depend on
> configuration of a repository or anything like that.
>> I will start some work on this and see where it goes.
>> 1. I am guessing that the try scheduler can accept a patch and that I might
>> be able to port this over to the force scheduler?
>> 2. I'm not at all sure how I'm going to be secure on the contents of a
>> patch, or the result of it. One of my reasons for using the force scheduler
>> is that I can then only enable the patch functionality to be applied through
>> an authenticated user, whom presumably I trust.
> That's exactly how it should work. Try supports either
> username/password authentication, or SSH authentication, so the force
> scheduler will need to support authentication as well. It already
> does, using cookies, which could be a bit hard to use from an API
>> 3. A command line try client separated from buildbot and it's dependencies
>> sounds good, but I think not a necessity to get this working.
> Well, you'll need to write a client anyway, right? I would think that
> it would be easier to write it outside of Buildbot. But whatever
> seems best to you.
When I initially thought about this I was wondering if I could get a
file chooser into the force scheduler to come and get a patch file off
my local machine. Thereby dodging the authentication as it has already
been done and also not needing anything on the client side. After a
careful reread I see better as to where you are coming from and I hadn't
fully considered these issues. I will look into it some more and see
what I can come up with. First I shall look at getting the testing
running on my machine. That is of course after I set up the current
project I am working on to get it's building and testing done by buildbot.
>> 4. JSON input would be something I would also put in the 'would like to
>> have' basket.
> I think JSON will be *easier* than formulating a form submission of
> the sort a browser would create.
>> 5. Unit tests, yes just have to find out how to create them for buildbot
>> 6. Docs, of course I love doing documentation (Just in case your mail
>> client doesn't show it that last bit was written using the 'sarcastic
> Buildbot's docs are one of its strengths :)
Unfortunately the same can not be said of me.
More information about the devel