[Buildbot-devel] tips for creating new P4-based source buildStep ?

[Stephan Koledin]

I think I finally found your new master step. Apparently I hadn't looked 
very hard the first time around. Is this it?
https://github.com/bdbaddog/buildbot/blob/p4_master_step_2012/master/buildbot/steps/source/p4.py

Does this step depend on any other mods in your branch, or is it pretty 
standalone vs 0.8.7? I guess I'm wondering if I can give it a quick test 
run by just patching it into my existing setup.

Thanks.
-Stephan

On 3/5/2013 8:28 AM, Stephan Koledin wrote:
> Bill, Dustin-
>
> Thanks for the great info/feedback. Agree that it makes a lot more sense
> to contribute to a p4 master step and of course, I'd feed back any work
> I do that's not just a local "customization".
>
> At the moment, I've got some pressure to get something out the door on
> this project fairlty quickly, so I've got a bit of a catch-22 on whether
> to do things "right" or just get something working. Of course, having
> something up and running will give me some flexibility to then help get
> a solid p4 master step up and working, so I guess my direction depends
> on how far along and stable Bill's p4 master step is.
>
> I won't be at PyCon, but might be able to take something small and run
> with it in parallel during that time.
>
> Bill, is your P4 master source step available somewhere? I didn't spot
> it in github, but I could just be not looking in the right place. Also,
> is this step something that can just be patched into an existing/working
> 0.8.7 buildbot setup, or do I need to be running on nine or some other
> dev tree?
>
> Also, just a point/question of interest, keep in mind I'm a relative
> buildbot newbie... If I wanted to override a particular buildStep
> method, it seems to me that if it's a master step, a simple change or
> derivative class could just be done via the master.cfg without having to
> directly patch/change the source. Is that correct, or am I being naive?
>
> Thanks again.
> -Stephan
>
> On 3/4/2013 10:16 PM, Bill Deegan wrote:
>> Stephan,
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Dustin J. Mitchell <dustin at v.igoro.us
>> <mailto:dustin at v.igoro.us>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Stephan Koledin <skoledin at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:skoledin at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>      > Thanks in advance for any advice on this. I really just want to
>> make
>>      > sure I'm headed in the right direction before committing to this
>>     approach.
>>
>>     It sounds like you're on the right track - at least, your
>>     implementation will be nicely independent of any changes to the
>>     existing P4 support.
>>
>>     That said, the P4 support hasn't seen much love recently:
>>       * last modification was in May 2012, and that was removing
>>     functionality; before that, August 2011
>>       * http://trac.buildbot.net/wiki/p4 lists the open bugs.
>>       * MAINTAINERS.txt indicates Bill (copied) as the maintainer, but
>> he's
>>     busy and we've been in short supply of P4 hackers
>>
>>     If you're willing, it would make the world a better place to have a
>>     master-side P4 step that has the flexibility you need, plus full unit
>>     tests (so those of us who are not P4 gurus can maintain it).
>>
>>     What do you think?
>>
>>
>> I have a functional master side P4 source step.
>> Lacking some tests at this point.
>> If you'd like to contribute to that branch rather than reinvent the
>> wheel.
>>
>> I was hoping to wrap this up at post pycon sprints coming up shortly.
>> -Bill
>