[users at bb.net] 0.9.0rc1 force build owners bug and many-to-many tags bug

Pierre Tardy tardyp at gmail.com
Sat Jul 30 09:31:30 UTC 2016

Hi Dave

Thanks for you feedback, it is very valuable

Le ven. 29 juil. 2016 à 21:04, Dave Vitek <dvitek at grammatech.com> a écrit :

> Hi all,
> I tried to sign up to log into the issue tracker but the capta is
> evidently not working.  If anyone wants to give me the username dvitek that
> would work.

Verm, can you make sure dvitek can get an account?

> 1) With the web application, the "force build" form seems to ignore the
> contents of the "Your name" field.  It always sends email to anonymous@
> instead of the username provided by the client.  The "Build properties" end
> up saying:
> owner anonymous Force Build Form Old versions of buildbot would email the
> specified username if the forced build failed.  The new one just causes
> bounces because it always emails anonymous at .

I though I did resolve this issue some times ago.Those kind of feature are
hard to test e2e so we have to rely on the community for it :-(
It is however recommended to configure an authentication plugin in order to
increase security and avoid people to always enter their email.
There are a bunch of options here, let us know if/why this is not
convenient for you

> 2) If I take an existing buildmaster, adjust the configuration so it has a
> many-to-many (builder, tag) relation, and then run "buildbot reconfig" I
> get a couple exceptions.  I do not know if the same thing happens if there
> is no pre-existing database.  In the old configuration that did not cause
> problems where no builder had more than one tag.  Some old tags went away
> entirely.

Looking at the error, I would say you have duplicates in tags list.
This problem should indeed not be managed at db level, but should trigger a
configuration error.

This is quite easy to add a test and fix just in time for rc2

> A couple other random questions after the upgrade to 0.9:
> Is there any way to make the "Builders" page always show the result of the
> most recent run, even if it's older than the time horizon it seems to want
> to show?

There is no way to do that right now. With current infra, it is difficult
to code this in a scalable manner. This is a problem that shall be resolved
after 0.9 release


> Do you know what it means if a builder's page shows a build is 'building'
> but the build's page says it is 'finished (n days ago)'?

I would say this is an inconsitency. Cannot say much more without more

> - Dave
> PS
> There might be a javascript memory drag on the "builders" page.  If I
> leave it open overnight, chrome will invariably have a crashed tab in the
> morning.

How many builds to you get overnight?
Indeed there is nothing which clean up the older builds to keep memory
usage in a certain bound.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.buildbot.net/pipermail/users/attachments/20160730/476d855e/attachment.html>

More information about the users mailing list