| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
These fields don't work like we expect them to. Because we're linking to
a non-idempotent entity, an instance of 'relation', what we're storing
in either of these fields is subject to change as patches are added and
removed. This makes the information pretty much useless after the fact.
It's best to just state the patch and request that people query the
information themselves if necessary. We don't want to remove the field
entirely from the API - that would be a truly breaking change - so
instead we null it out like we do for patch tags. In a v2 API (i.e. a
major version bump) we can remove this entirely.
A small bug with the schema generation is corrected.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <stephen@that.guru>
Related: #379
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We want to get rid of the split between 'Patch' and 'Submission' because
of the cost of using JOINs basically everywhere we use 'Patch'. Before
we do that, we need to move the other users of 'Submission' to other
models and other models that rely on these users sharing the common
'Submission' base. For the former, there is only one user,
'CoverLetter', while for the latter there is only the 'Comment' model.
As a result, we must do the following:
- Create a new 'Cover' model
- Create a new 'CoverComment' model
- Move everything from 'CoverLetter' to 'Cover' and all entries
associated with a 'CoverLetter' from 'Comment' to 'CoverComment'
- Delete the 'CoverLetter' model
- Rename the 'Comment' model to 'PatchComment'
This means our model "hierarchy" goes from:
Submission
Patch
CoverLetter
Comment
To:
Submission
Patch
PatchComment
Cover
CoverComment
A future change will flatten the 'Submission' and 'Patch' model.
Note that this actually highlighted a bug in Django, which has since
been reported upstream [1]. As noted there, the issue stems from MySQL's
refusal to remove an index from a foreign key when DB constraints are
used and the workaround is to remove the foreign key constraint before
altering the indexes and then re-add the constraint after.
[1] https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/31335
Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <stephen@that.guru>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Introduces the ability to add relations between patches. Relations are
displayed in the details page of a patch under 'Related'. Related
patches located in another projects can be viewed as well.
Changes to relations are tracked in events. Currently the display of
this is very bare in the API but that will be fixed in a subsequent patch:
this is the minimum required to avoid throwing errors when you view the
events feed.
Signed-off-by: Mete Polat <metepolat2000@gmail.com>
[dja: address some review comments from Stephen, add an admin view,
move to using Events, misc tidy-ups.]
Signed-off-by: Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We want to use the events as an audit log. An important part of this is
recording _who_ made the changes that the events represent.
To accomplish this, we need to know the current user (aka. request.user)
at the point where we create the Event instance. Event creation is
currently triggered by signals, but neither the signal handlers, nor the
model classes themselves have easy access to request.user.
For some Patch-based events (patch-state-changed, patch-delegated), we
can do the following hack: The relevant events are created in signal
handlers that are all hooked up to either the pre_save or post_save
signals sent by Patch.save(). But before calling Patch.save(),
Patchwork must naturally query Patch.is_editable() to ascertain whether
the patch can in fact be changed by the current user. Thus, we only
need a way to communicate the current user from Patch.is_editable()
to the signal handlers that create the resulting Events. The Patch
object itself is available in both places, so we simply add an
'_edited_by' attribute to the instance (which fortunately is not
detected as a persistent db field by Django).
For the check-created event the current user always happens to be the
same as the 'user' field recorded in the Check object itself.
For the other Patch-based events (patch-created, patch-completed, and
series-completed), although they are also triggered by Patch.save(),
they are triggered as a result of incoming emails, hence have no real
actor as such, so we simply leave the actor as None/NULL. The same
argument also applies to the cover-created and series-created events.
Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Reviewed-by: Stephen Finucane <stephen@that.guru>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'm not sure how I ever intended this to work and there were no tests
verifying things. Fix it now and add tests to prevent it regressing.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <stephen@that.guru>
Fixes: 76505e91 ("models: Convert Series-Patch relationship to 1:N")
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Late in the development of the series feature, it was decided that there
were advantages to allowing an N:M relationship between series and
patches. This would allow us to do things like create complete series
where a sole vN patch was sent to a list rather than the full series.
After some time using series in the wild, it's apparent that such
features are very difficult to implement correctly and will likely never
be implemented. As such, it's time to start cleaning up the mess, paving
the way for things like an improved tagging feature.
There are some significant changes to the model required:
- models.py, migrations/0027, migrations/0028, migrations/0029
The migrations make the following changes:
1. - Add 'Patch.series_alt' and 'Patch.number' fields.
2. - Populate the 'Patch.series_alt' and 'Patch.number' fields from
their 'SeriesPatch' equivalents.
3. - Remove the 'SeriesPatch' model.
- Rename 'Patch.series_alt' to 'Patch.series'.
- Change 'Series.cover_letter' to a 'OneToOneField' since a cover
letter can no longer be assigned to multiple series.
Note that the migrations have to be split into multiple parts as the
combined migration raises an OperationalError as below.
(1072, "Key column 'series_alt_id' doesn't exist in table")
This is due to Django's penchant for creating indexes for newly
created fields, as noted here: https://stackoverflow.com/q/35158530/
Aside from the model changes, there are numerous other changes required:
- admin.py
Reflect model changes for the 'PatchInline' inline used by
'SeriesAdmin'
- api/cover.py, api/patch.py
Update the 'series' field for the cover letter and patch resources to
reflect the model changes. A 'to_representation' function is added in
both cases to post-process this field and make it look like a list
again. This is necessary to avoid breaking clients.
- parser.py
Update to reflect the replacement of 'SeriesPatch' with 'Patch'.
- signals.py
Update to filter on changes to 'Patch' instead of 'SeriesPatch'. This
requires some reworking due to how we set these fields now, as we can
no longer receive on 'post_save' signals for 'SeriesPatch' and must
instead watch for 'pre_save' on 'Patch', which is what we do for
delegate and state changes on same.
- templates/patchwork/*.html
Remove logic that handled multiple series in favour of the (simpler)
single series logic.
- tests/*
Modify the 'create_series_patch' helper to reflect the removal of the
'SeriesPatch' model. This entire helper will be removed in a future
change. Improve some tests to cover edge cases that were highlighted
during development
Unfortunately, all of the above changes must go in at the same time,
otherwise we end up with either (a) broken views, API etc. or (b) split
brain because we need to keep the new single-series fields alongside the
older multi-series fields and models while we rework the views. It's
unfortunate but there's not much to be done here.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <stephen@that.guru>
Tested-by: Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The FSF has a new address since 2005 that hasn't been noted in any file
except the COPYING file. Rather than fix these, simply remove the
headers in favour of a SPDX license header. IANAL but the combination of
the header and the COPYING file in source should resolve this issue.
Note that copyright notices are retained.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <stephen@that.guru>
Closes: #210
Reviewed-by: Veronika Kabatova <vkabatov@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Patchwork saves patches, comments etc with UTC timezone and reports
this time when opening the patch details. However, internally generated
processes such as events are reported with the instance's local time.
There's nothing wrong with that and making PW timezone-aware would add
useless complexity, but in a world-wide collaboration a lot of confusion
may arise as the timezone is not reported at all. Instance's local time
might be very different from the local time of CI integrating with PW,
which is different from the local time of person dealing with it etc.
Use UTC everywhere by default instead of UTC for sumbissions and local
timezone for internally generated events (which is not reported).
Signed-off-by: Veronika Kabatova <vkabatov@redhat.com>
[dja:
- squash 2 patches: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/876744/
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/877815/
- minor changes to both patches - rejig order of migrations and
adjust wording: "happened sooner" -> "happened earlier"]
Tested-by: Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>
|
| |
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <stephen@that.guru>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If loading fixtures via the 'loaddata' management command, then it is
unlikely that the signal handling code should execute. Disable it.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <stephen@that.guru>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When models are modified, fire signal handlers to create the relevant
events.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <stephen@that.guru>
Tested-by: Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>
|
|
|
Additional signals are going to be added shortly and they shouldn't
pollute 'models.py'.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <stephen@that.guru>
Tested-by: Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>
|