| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
Apparently any effects from this change haven’t shown up noticeably
in GitHub’s metrics, to the point where they’re not sure if it
was taking effect on the backend. Our contact is going to look at
getting something into the API response to help debug whether it’s
actually working or not, but agreed that we should just revert for
now. Since they have apparently reduced replica sync issues further
through other changes on their end, there shouldn’t be any urgent
need to make any changes here anyway.
This reverts commit 18b30c8ce1eed9ff2e86128036b674e9e3796aaa.
|
|
When a maintainer deletes their GitHub account, the bot would crash with a 404 error when trying to fetch their user info via `/user/{id}`.
This caused the scheduled bot workflow to fail repeatedly until manual intervention (e.g., closing/reopening the affected PR to clear the requested reviewer).
Fix by returning null from getUser() for 404 responses and filtering out null users when building the reviewers list.
|
|
This is an experiment and can be reverted a few days from now; if
the results are positive on GitHub’s end, then we may want to make
the merge conflict checks run less frequently than the rest of the
labelling tasks.
|
|
I fixed this for the maintainer maps, but the artifact that was causing the
particular issue that prompted me to try to fix it was actually the
pagination cursor. So fix that too.
Related: #464046.
|
|
Should help debug "Review cannot be requested from pull request author."
in https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/actions/runs/19591357890/job/56110301046#step:6:4726.
|
|
Should prevent "Unhandled error: HttpError: Artifact has expired", as was
present in e.g. https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/actions/runs/19594659032.
|
|
This reverts commit 402b41c1257ffc7cb88f2876b5fa20ab3ffe4f95.
GitHub' API repeatedly returns wrong data which causes closed PRs when
the changes had not been merged, yet.
We have closed a bit more than 100 PRs overall, most of them initially -
the feature is not really that important overall.
|
|
It makes not much sense to run all the checks for PRs when we can
already tell they are stale beforehand. In particular this should avoid
creating ~3.3k temporary merge commits every day, for PRs that surely
won't have had any change.
The number of merge commits *could* play a role in the growing size of
the fork network. We'll have GitHub look into the metrics before and
after this change to see whether that is any improvement.
|
|
|
|
This was introduced as part of the hotfix PR to avoid hitting API rate
limits - but the condition was wrong. It was supposed to trigger in all
PR contexts, not only for the Test workflow.
|
|
This lead to reaching secondary API limits in a treewide recently, so we
better limit it to where we actually need it.
|
|
We only recently introduced the owners.txt file to the comparison
artifact, so once the bot runs on a schedule it will it older artifacts
very quickly - and then can't find the owners file.
We can fallback to an empty owners list in this case, because an older
artifact also means an older workflow run previously, so this will have
pinged owners already.
|
|
This should fix the bug where the "needs: reviewer" label was set too
early, just to be removed immediately, because reviewers were then
requested.
|
|
This migrates the bash code to request reviewers to github-script. This
will allow multiple nice improvements later on, but at this stage it's
mostly a reduction in code and complexity.
|
|
We technically counted bot approvals and approvals by deleted users for
the approval labels as well. The former don't exist, yet, but if they
were, I don't think we'd count them. The latter should arguably *not* be
counted, because we can't tell anymore *who* approved, so we can't put
any weight on it as reviewers.
This simplifies the logic, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a user tries to merge a PR, but is not allowed to, it is helpful to
explicitly list the users who *are* allowed. This helps explaining *why*
the merge-eligible label was set.
I objected to this proposal before, because it would incur too many API
requests. But after we have restructured the checklist, this is not
actually true anymore - we can now sensibly run this only when a comment
is posted and not whenever we check a PR for eligibility.
|
|
This partially reverts commit 1197fe48da1d45506a3e95702ce5fb6437368598.
GitHub just doesn't schedule these narrow intervals. 10 minutes is
alright in practice.
|
|
This allows re-using this elsewhere with a shared cache.
|
|
This makes reactions to merge comments and all the labeling a bit
quicker. Lower the number of backlog items to process per run
accordingly, so that we don't really need more API requests for it.
|
|
We used to employ the worst strategy for parallelism possibly: The rate
limiter capped us at one concurrent request per second, while 100+ items
were handled in parallel. This lead to every item taking the full
duration of the job to proceed, making the data fetched at the beginning
of the job stale at the end. This leads to smaller hiccups when
labeling, or to the merge-bot posting comments after the PR has already
been closed.
GitHub allows 100 concurrent requests, but considers it a best practice
to serialize them. Since serializing all of them causes problems for us,
we should try to go higher.
Since other jobs are running in parallel, we use a conservative value of
20 concurrent requests here. We also introduce the same number of
workers going through the list of items, to make sure that each item is
handled in the shortest time possible from start to finish, before
proceeding to the next. This gives us roughly 2.5 seconds per individual
item - but speeds up the overall execution of the scheduled job to 20-30
seconds from 3-4 minutes before.
|
|
When we recently refactored the code to use the maintainer map for
related labels, we made a mistake: When a PR has no packages with
maintainers returned from eval, the label would internally be set to `0`
instead of `false`.
The code would then go on compare the before and after labels with
strict equality - and assume a difference, because `0 !== false`. Thus,
it seemed like new labels needed to be set, so the PUT request was
actually sent. Of course, the labels were actually the same - when
filtering the labels to be set, the `0` would also be treated as falsy,
so the label would not be set. This would result in no visible change in
the PR, but internall GitHub would replace the `updated_at` timestamp
for that PR - after all we replaced all labels.
Repeatedly updating *all* PRs we're looking at quickly causes problems,
because we are going to look at the same PRs *again* in the next cycle -
essentially causing infinite recursion. The bot became slower and slower
over time, because it had to process more and more PRs each run.
Simply casting this to a proper Boolean, should get us out of the mess
soon.
|
|
This makes it more visible which PRs are merge-bot eligible, by setting
a label respectively.
|
|
Running the nixpkgs-merge-bot in GitHub Actions instead of a separate
workflow has multiple advantages:
- A much better development workflow, with improved testability.
- The ability to label PRs with a "merge-bot eligible" label from the
same codebase.
- Using more data for merge strategy decisions, for example the number
of rebuilds.
This commits re-implements most of the features from the current
nxipkgs-merge-bot directly in the bot workflow. Instead of reacting to
webhook events, this now runs on the regular 10 minute schedule. Some
merges might be delayed a few minutes, but that should not be a problem
in practice.
To give the user early feedback, there are additional workflows running
when a comment or review is posted. These react with "eyes" to make the
user aware that the comment has been recognized.
The only feature not taken over was the size check for files in the PR.
This kind of check is not really relevant for maintainer merges only -
if we want to prevent bigger files from making it into the tree, then we
need a generic CI check, which is out of scope for the merge-bot.
Other than that, everything should be implemented - any omissions are by
accident.
|
|
This workflow / script is already doing more than must labeling: it's
already auto-closing package request issues.
Since we're going to migrate the nixpkgs-merge-bot into this workflow,
we'll rename things to a more generic name.
|
