Hmm. It probably is the right place, but I think a straight up "NO" is more likely if we go that route.
It's hard to know if I should just implement 3) before we even ask in order to improve our likelihood of getting something we can work with. I will think about this and see what I can come up with as a simple yet complete solution that will enable us to test against distributed CI environments, while still fitting into a model that the Apache infra guys will approve. On Mar 7, 2016 6:36 PM, "Erik Weber" <terbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > I guess the appropriate channel would be to create a jira ticket for INFRA: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA > > -- > Erik > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com> > wrote: > > > This is kind of what I was expecting. Do you know who I would be > > contacting? The permissions required are VERY minimal AND they have > > already given the 'TravisCI' application the same permissions as we need > > for this. > > > > How did we get the TravisCI application enabled and the permissions > > accepted for that integration? > > > > I have been trying to thinking of ways to potentially work the system > from > > that side. The main issue I have with this approach is that it is not a > > single application that we want to give permission to. Ideally, we would > > give each individual/organization who is contributing a CI environment > > their own token. In that case, we would have to register the CI of each > > party as their own CI integration. > > > > Here are some ideas I have as a 'work around' to the problem: > > > > 1) Register a single upr CI application with Github and have the apache > > guys enable the integration. This will give the application a single > > access token. I can then compile upr with the access token embedded into > > the binary. I don't like this approach and I feel we would probably be > > violating some ToS somewhere. > > > > 2) Provide a web server implementation that each CI party can use to > > register their own CI endpoint as a Github application integration. Then > > we have the apache guys enable each of them (which will be a harder sell > to > > them), but then each CI party will get their own token and will be able > to > > post back as themselves. This is also nice because if someone is not a > > good community member and misbehaves, their integration can be revoked > > without it affecting everyone else who has a CI integration. > > > > 3) Provide a single web server implementation that is registered as a > > Github Application Integration. This implementation is then approved by > > the apache guys for the cloudstack repo. This web server implementation > > (let's call it upr_server) keeps our one and only access token. I then > > modify the upr command line tool to take a token that is provided by the > > upr_server when a CI party registers on the upr_server website. The > > upr command > > will actually target the upr_server box when posting statuses, etc, which > > will essentially proxy the calls on to Github using the token that was > > approved for the integration. > > > > I think that 3) is probably the cleanest solution and would reduce our > > chances of getting banned by someone for being too cheeky. It is a whole > > lot of trouble for nothing, but if they are going to be a stick in the > mud > > about this and not allow access tokens to anything other than official > > github supported integrations, then I will have to make that work... > > > > Ideas? Thoughts? Rants? :P > > > > *Will STEVENS* > > Lead Developer > > > > *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > > 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 > > w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ > > > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Remi Bergsma < > rberg...@schubergphilis.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Will, > > > > > > This is the main problem: there’s no one except Apache Infra with > access > > > to the Github CloudStack repo. Even committers have to push to Apache > > git, > > > which is mirrored to Github. We can’t close a PR, set a label, change a > > > title or whatever basic operation. You can ask them for a token. When I > > (as > > > the release manager) asked for any more permission than an anonymous > user > > > has it was kindly refused. I really hope you’ll have more luck but I > > > wouldn’t count on it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Remi > > > > > > > > > On 07/03/16 19:10, "williamstev...@gmail.com on behalf of Will > Stevens" > > < > > > williamstev...@gmail.com on behalf of wstev...@cloudops.com> wrote: > > > > > > >The main thing we have to sort out with this type of integration (as > it > > is > > > >today) is the distribution of access tokens with the correct > permissions > > > on > > > >the apache/cloudstack github repo. The required permissions are very > > > >limited, but I don't know if we have access to create new tokens. If > we > > > >don't then I will have to develop an application integration > workaround > > to > > > >make it easier for the people with access to the apache/cloudstack > repo > > to > > > >give the people running CI integrations access to update statuses > (like > > > the > > > >current travis integration). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If you have questions or feedback, please don't be shy. > > > > > > > >*Will STEVENS* > > > >Lead Developer > > > > > > > >*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > > > >420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 > > > >w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ > > > > > > > >On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Bharat Kumar < > > > bharat.ku...@accelerite.com> > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi guys, > > > >> > > > >> I am also working on the similar reporting problem, here is what i > did > > > >> > > > >> link to the report https://github.com/bvbharatk/cloud-stack/pull/1 > > > >> > > > >> I am thinking this is good enough for now, I want to start posting > the > > > >> results on each pr as shown in the above link. > > > >> please give me your comments or suggestions. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Bharat > > > >> On 05-Mar-2016, at 7:02 PM, Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com > > <mailto: > > > >> wstev...@cloudops.com>> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Daan > > > >> > > > >> Regarding the obligatory provider id. I agree, but I am still > trying > > to > > > >> figure out the details. Creating distinct runs that have their own > > > status > > > >> is done by setting the 'context'. I think we would need to have two > > > pieces > > > >> to this. A provider id and an environment id. > > > >> > > > >> So for example. Lets assume that my provider id is 'CloudOps' and I > > > have > > > >> two different environments, one for 'KVM' and one for 'Xen' (for > > > example). > > > >> I would then the tool would produce the following two independent CI > > > >> statuses. > > > >> 'CloudOps - KVM' : with a basic description of the environment. > > > >> 'CloudOps - Xen' : again with a basic description of the env. > > > >> ... and so on ... > > > >> > > > >> I am still sorting out the details here as well as making it easy > for > > > us to > > > >> integrate this into the apache/cloudstack repo with the access we > > > currently > > > >> have. Adding this is 'no biggy' for me because I am building this > > tool > > > as > > > >> we speak, and trying to tailor it to our (ACS) needs, so this type > of > > > >> feedback is perfect as it allows me to adapt the tool before I get > too > > > >> deep. > > > >> > > > >> *Will STEVENS* > > > >> Lead Developer > > > >> > > > >> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > > > >> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 > > > >> w cloudops.com<http://cloudops.com> *|* tw @CloudOps_ > > > >> > > > >> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Daan Hoogland < > > daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > > > >> <mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Will > > > >> > > > >> Gret work, especially the thing you are showing in link [4], I would > > > like > > > >> to make an enhancement request and that is a obligatory provider id. > > > Only > > > >> if it is no biggy for you! > > > >> Several people may decide to do a XVM on ChildrensOS for instance > and > > > so we > > > >> may be aware of an obscurity that is different. If one fails and the > > > other > > > >> succeeds it is easily identified. > > > >> > > > >> Ilya, > > > >> > > > >> I have been playing with go and it is a very nice language for such > a > > > >> simple script, though it wasn't exactly designed for it. So don't > read > > > my > > > >> comment/question as an objection. But we do have > > > >> bash,python,c#,java,javascript,xslt,sql at least. That is not > counting > > > the > > > >> build system and I am sure the hyperv has some extra windows > specific > > > >> stuff. > > > >> To me it is inherent to the nature of across platform orchestration > > and > > > >> provisioning system so it is fine. It is something to consider. On > the > > > >> other hand when bringing in new tools we don't make the choice > so.... > > I > > > am > > > >> ranting, I guess. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:38 AM, ilya <ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com > > > <mailto: > > > >> ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> I see where Daan is coming from :) I thought this would be 4th, not > > > >> exactly 7ths. > > > >> > > > >> I'm not against golang by any means (if anything - its my next "go" > to > > > >> language these days). > > > >> > > > >> Things to consider: > > > >> > > > >> Would notify-pr support proxy? I've been thinking on ways of > > > >> contributing test runs, there would have to be few things i'd need > to > > > do. > > > >> > > > >> 1) massage the log content - such that no environment details are > > > >> exposed, i can probably handle this with sed/awk.. > > > >> > > > >> 2) i'm behind multiple firewalls with no internet access. however, > > some > > > >> lab environments might have a proxy, so it would be nice to have a > > > >> support for it. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks > > > >> ilya > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 3/4/16 6:56 AM, Will Stevens wrote: > > > >> Yes, I have most of it already built and will be releasing it later > > > >> today > > > >> or over the weekend. The reason I chose Golang is because it can be > > > >> cross > > > >> compiled to be run on any system and distributed as a single binary > > > >> with > > > >> no > > > >> dependencies. This means that no one will have to worry about > > building > > > >> it > > > >> or having to change their environment at all in order to use it. I > am > > > >> trying to lower the barrier to entry and make it as easy as possible > > > >> for > > > >> people to contribute back their CI execution details. > > > >> > > > >> *Will STEVENS* > > > >> Lead Developer > > > >> > > > >> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > > > >> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 > > > >> w cloudops.com<http://cloudops.com> *|* tw @CloudOps_ > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Daan Hoogland < > > daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > > > >> <mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Will, Do you have an implementation of notify-pr? I am asking as you > > > >> specify it will be implemented in golang which seems odd. It is not > > > >> amongst > > > >> the 7 or so languages already in use. > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Will Stevens < > > > >> williamstev...@gmail.com<mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com>> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hey Everyone, > > > >> As I am sure most of you are aware, I have been focusing a lot on > > > >> ways > > > >> to > > > >> get CI integrated back into the community. > > > >> > > > >> Today I build a little POC to validate some ideas and get a feel for > > > >> a > > > >> potential approach for getting CI integrated into the Github pull > > > >> request > > > >> workflow. > > > >> > > > >> There are multiple individuals/companies focusing on CI right now > > > >> (which > > > >> is a good thing), but there has not really been much discussion > > > >> (that I > > > >> am > > > >> aware of) for how these different CI runs will push back results to > > > >> the > > > >> community. I want to make sure that nobody's work on this topic > goes > > > >> to > > > >> waste, so my goal is to provide a simple and consistent way for > > > >> everyone > > > >> to > > > >> push their results back to the community. > > > >> > > > >> Here is the basic idea (please give feedback): > > > >> - A simple cross platform command line tool with zero dependencies > > > >> will > > > >> be > > > >> provided (and open sourced) which will handle the submission of the > > > >> CI > > > >> results back to the community. It is written in Golang and is > > > >> currently > > > >> called 'notify_pr'. > > > >> - At the end of a CI execution, the CI should automate the execution > > > >> of > > > >> this tool to handle updating the appropriate PR with the results. > > > >> > > > >> Configuration can be done via the command line or through an INI > > > >> file. > > > >> Here is an example of the configuration details. The commit is the > > > >> commit that the CI just executed against. > > > >> > > > >> token = <your github token> > > > >> owner = apache > > > >> repo = cloudstack > > > >> commit = c8443496d3fad78a4b1a48a0992ce545bde299e8 > > > >> > > > >> summary_file = <a text file summary of the run> > > > >> full_detail_dir = <a directory structure to be recursively uploaded > > > >> to > > > >> object store> > > > >> full_detail_files = <a comma separated list of files to upload to > > > >> object > > > >> store> > > > >> store_api = <swift or s3> > > > >> store_endpoint = <url endpoint> > > > >> store_identity = <keystone identity or aws access key> > > > >> store_secret = <keystone password or aws secret key> > > > >> > > > >> I have not yet implemented the object storage endpoints, but I have > > > >> code > > > >> to do it from a different project, so I just need to add it. I will > > > >> be > > > >> able to host my CI output in a swift object store, but others may > > > >> need > > > >> to > > > >> use AWS S3. Maybe we can get sponsorship for this storage. We will > > > >> only > > > >> keep the logs for a window of like a week or so on the object store > > > >> so > > > >> the > > > >> storage usage will not be ever growing. > > > >> > > > >> Basically, the tool takes the details of the repository you are > > > >> validating > > > >> a Pull Request for and the commit you are building. It also takes > > > >> the > > > >> files you would like to push to the pull request. The summary file > > > >> will > > > >> be > > > >> shown as text in the pull request comment and the other files will > be > > > >> uploaded to an object store and will be publically available for a > > > >> period > > > >> of time (probably about a week and then get cleaned up, details > TBD). > > > >> The > > > >> files to be uploaded to object store could be either specified as > > > >> individual files, OR a target directory and all the files in that > > > >> directory > > > >> will be recursively uploaded to the object store. > > > >> > > > >> When the tool is run, it will scan through all the open pull > requests > > > >> in > > > >> the target repository and when it finds the pull request > > > >> corresponding > > > >> to > > > >> the commit in question, it will post the details as a comment to > that > > > >> pull > > > >> request. This functionality is currently working (see the attached > > > >> screenshot). I can change the formatting and such, this is just an > > > >> example. > > > >> > > > >> This is still a very rough concept that I have only worked on for a > > > >> day, > > > >> but hopefully you guys agree that it is a good start towards a > > > >> consistent > > > >> feedback mechanism for the community to take advantage of the > > > >> different > > > >> distributed CI installations. > > > >> > > > >> Please voice your feedback and concerns. I am sure I have not > > > >> thought > > > >> of > > > >> everything and we may still want to make fundamental changes to the > > > >> approach, but I think the concept is solid. > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> > > > >> Will > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Daan > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Daan > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> DISCLAIMER > > > >> ========== > > > >> This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information > which > > is > > > >> the property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is > > > intended > > > >> only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is > addressed. > > > If > > > >> you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, > > > retain, > > > >> copy, print, distribute or use this message. If you have received > this > > > >> communication in error, please notify the sender and delete all > copies > > > of > > > >> this message. Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not > > accept > > > any > > > >> liability for virus infected mails. > > > >> > > > > > >
