avoid CI typos about automation HOT 6 CLOSED

When the github bot was able to start citgm CI runs on request, it worked by collaborators posting a comment in the PR @-mentioning the bot which would then work out the correct parameters. It worked really well when it worked and would be a good long term solution.

from automation.

As an awkward workaround till this is done properly, I can suggest a tiny bookmarklet with a new Google Chrome clipboard API (available since v66):

javascript: {
  (async () => {
    try {
      const PR_ID = location.pathname.replace(/.+\/pull\/(\d+).*/, '$1');

      if (confirm(`Create CI for #${PR_ID} ("${document.title}")?`)) {
        await navigator.clipboard.writeText(PR_ID);
        open('https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/build?delay=0sec');
      }
    } catch (err) {
      alert(err);
    }
  })();
}

It asks if the PR is an intended one, copies its ID to the clipboard and opens CI form.

from automation.

The way @vsemozhetbyt suggested could be easily done in node-review and it's a perfect place for it.

from automation.

have git node land check the CI parameters to make sure they match the PR number? (That's a big request and would probably be sloooooow.)

Not really, actually, unless the Jenkins is stucked for some reason. All you need is an additional request to the Jenkins API. In case anyone is interested, here is how you can figure out the PRID from a build (code copy-pasted from nodejs/node-core-utils#161, and from my experience using that PR to get the CI results (~3-5 req per PR failed by flakes) , the request is pretty fast if Jenkins is not stucked):

// request a build with the suffix api/json/?tree=actions[parameters[name,value]]
// e.g. https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/13871/api/json?tree=actions[parameters[name,value]]
// https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit/17170/api/json?tree=actions[parameters[name,value]]

  get sourceURL() {
    const { params } = this;

    if (params.PR_ID) {  // from a node-test-pull-request build
      const owner = params.TARGET_GITHUB_ORG;
      const repo = params.TARGET_REPO_NAME;
      const prid = params.PR_ID;
      return `https://github.com/${owner}/${repo}/pull/${prid}/`;
    }

    if (params.GITHUB_ORG) {  // from a node-test-commit build
      const owner = params.GITHUB_ORG;
      const repo = params.REPO_NAME;
      const prm = params.GIT_REMOTE_REF.match(/refs\/pull\/(\d+)\/head/);
      if (prm) {
        return `https://github.com/${owner}/${repo}/pull/${prm[1]}/`;
      } else {
        const result =
          `https://api.github.com/repos/${owner}/${repo}/git/` +
          params.GIT_REMOTE_REF;
        return result;
      }
    }
  }

from automation.

When the github bot was able to start citgm CI runs on request, it worked by collaborators posting a comment in the PR @-mentioning the bot which would then work out the correct parameters. It worked really well when it worked and would be a good long term solution.

Most recently discussed in nodejs/build#1180, agreed that this is the best solution long-term.

I like the idea of git node metadata warning if the PR-URL doesn't match, given that it's already telling you whether CI was run or not.

from automation.

Unarchived this repo so I could close all the PRs and issues. Will re-archive when I'm done.

from automation.