Add `conflict_resolution` input #417

vermz99 · 2024-03-31T01:11:31Z

Summary

The goal of this PR is to allow creating draft PR for backport that resulted in merge conflict.

Similar to #386

Consideration

New input was added in experimental since side effect are not fully well-know. I did some testing and it seems to work great, but I might have overlooked something.
cherry-pick is stopped at first commit conflict. ~~The commit in conflict is not committed, but all the previous ones are.~~
PR is created as Draft to ensure the user is aware that it is an incomplete PR
Suggestion resolution message is added both in original PR and new PR to ensure the user take action and do not merge unresolved PR.
Might need to add label to emphasize even more that PR need to solve some conflict?

Dev Notes

Did some refactoring in the messages to try to make this as centralized as possible. I am open to suggestion here if this does not align with maintainers vision.

TODO

add to ReadMe
add unit test (open to suggestion here)
Determine if backport_on_conflicts remains in experimental
Determine if label is needed
Add commit conflict logic

vermz99 · 2024-03-31T20:26:11Z

Issue identified

I overlooked that GH does not allow to create PRs for 2 identical branches.

Important

This PR needs rework

I probably will commit the conflict like initially suggested in #386, but i'll provide instruction in the suggestion to reset last commit (i.e., git reset --hard HEAD^) and restart cherry-pick from the conflict followed by git push --force.

korthout · 2024-03-31T20:56:32Z

Thanks for the amazing contribution @vermz99. It looks very promising! I'll provide some more detailed comments in the coming week, but wanted to already share some early thoughts.

I probably will commit the conflict like initially suggested in #386, but i'll provide instruction in the suggestion to reset last commit (i.e., git reset --hard HEAD^) and restart cherry-pick from the conflict followed by git push --force.

🤔 This is worsening the DX for the cases where some of the commits could be cherry-picked without conflicts. Or it introduces a special case where users need to interact differently with the created draft PR in relation to those cases I mentioned. Different interactions may be hard to get used to when using backport-action in a repo actively like our team does.

My current thought is that we should go with your first idea instead. We can make the feature flag a bit more flexible, for example by calling it conflict_resolution taking one of a few values fail (fails the backport) or partial_draft (your first idea with partial backport of as much it can do). Then, we can later expand this with other modes like partial_draft_allowing_empty (special case dealing with the first commit leading to conflicts) or draft_commit_conflicts (with the behavior described in #386).

With that in mind, we can keep the initial version simple. It will improve the situation for pull requests with multiple commits. What do you think?

Regarding labeling, I think an output may be more flexible. It would allow anyone to add labeling afterward, or do anything else they want.

vermz99 · 2024-03-31T22:31:28Z

Thank you for the initial feedback!

🤔 This is worsening the DX for the cases where some of the commits could be cherry-picked without conflicts. Or it introduces a special case where users need to interact differently with the created draft PR in relation to those cases I mentioned. Different interactions may be hard to get used to when using backport-action in a repo actively like our team does.

Regarding this, just to clarify my idea, I was thinking of always giving the git reset --hard HEAD^ set of instructions when a conflict is encountered. This will rollback only the conflict commit, not all the previous ones correctly cherry-picked. So it would always look like that, in cases where conflicts occur:

cherry-pick all up until, and including, the first conflict encountered
Create draft PR
Provide the following set of instructions on both PR (original and new one)

git fetch origin
git worktree add
cd .worktree
git switch
git reset --hard HEAD^ #To rollback only the first commit, which should always have a conflict
git cherry-pick sha1 sha2 sha3 ... shaN
git push --force

I can see how it might add another level of complexity if we handle all the cases differently (i.e., first commit conflict has a different behavior than conflict on subsequent commits), that's why I had in mind to always have the above behavior, regardless of the position of the conflict.

For now while we think a bit about it and to give other contributors a chance to see this, I'll rework the code to allow different flags for different behavior.

Note

If we indeed decide to have a partial_draft_allowing_empty option, I made some tests and we could amend nothing to HEAD to create a new commit, but that would for sure dirty the history a bit and may be problematic for some people. Something to think about...

korthout · 2024-04-01T08:23:35Z

So, if only a single commit abcdef12 is being backported and it conflicts, then the instructions have the same structure as a backport of many commits where any of them conflicts.

git fetch origin
git worktree add
cd .worktree
git switch
git reset --hard HEAD^ #To rollback only the first commit, which should always have a conflict
git cherry-pick abcdef12
git push --force

So, the DX differs for backports with conflicts, but it already does anyway (PR is draft, manual effort is required). I like it 👍

* changed param name * refactor for new commit conflict_resolution flag * refactor for new commit conflict_resolution flag * Fix unit test --------- Co-authored-by: Alex Vermette <vermz@hotmail.ca>

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Vermette Lefebvre <AlexVermette-Eaton@users.noreply.github.com>

AlexVermette-Eaton · 2024-04-03T20:25:42Z

@korthout Ready for review.

What I did

Added the conflict_resolution flag, as suggested. I only implemented fail and draft_commit_conflicts for now. We can discuss if other cases are needed for first version of this feature. As this is a significant changes, I don't want to introduce too many things that can lead to bugs.
Added unit tests. I tried to cover as much as possible the new feature. Tell me if you need more.
Refactored a bit everything around suggestions. I think I might need Improve manual instructions #305 relatively soon so I tried to keep that in mind when I designed this part.

What I did not do

I did not add an output as I don't really know how it should be represented. I'm open to suggestion if we want this for the first version.
I did not implement partial_draft and partial_draft_allowing_empty.
Test all possible scenarios. This is pretty hard and time consuming to test so if you want to help me test it on your side, that would be awesome. I'm also open to deploy it in prod on my side (20+ devs) to test it before merging, if we think it's necessary.

korthout · 2024-04-05T16:08:17Z

Thanks @AlexVermette-Eaton 🙇 My apology for not having found the time to review it.

Please note that I'm currently moving internationally, and I'll review it as soon as I can, but I can't make promises now. If you need this functionality immediately, I suggest your team temporarily switches to the version in your fork until we merge this.

I hope to be back at full capacity in a few weeks, and who knows, I may still find a moment to sit down for this soon enough. Sorry for the inconvenience.

korthout

Apology for the long wait @AlexVermette-Eaton @vermz99, but I'm fully back again now! After my move, I first reviewed and merged #405. And today, I found time to review this great addition!

🙌 First off, thanks for the changes! I really like how this has evolved.

🙇 Sadly, some conflicts were introduced by merging #405. Let me know if you need some help to resolve these.

💭 As your changes refer to origin in some places, it will not function correctly together with the new downstream_repo feature (from #405). That's totally fine for now. We can improve that in a separate PR later, as both these features are experimental. Let's ship first, and then improve.

🔧 I also have a few suggestions, but nothing about the functionality itself. Please have a look.

👍 I'm happy how you've managed to separate the experimental parts from the existing code, this makes it easy for me to approve and merge.

👍 Regarding tests, I'm happy to see that you've added some unit tests. That's really enough for me. We can consider adding an E2E case in the future. As this is experimental, I'd rather ship it in an early form than to have comprehensive tests in place. The same goes for outputs, labeling, other input options, etc.

So, please have a look at my suggestions and resolve the conflicts. Then we should be good to ship it

src/backport.ts

src/git.ts

korthout · 2024-03-31T16:44:51Z

src/git.ts

+        const { exitCode } = await this.git("cherry-pick", ["-x", sha], pwd);
+
+        if (exitCode !== 0) {
+          if (exitCode === 1) {


Is a conflict the only reason for 1 as exit code? If not, we could consider matching the stdout or stderr to be sure.

Based on what I read, a conflict should always return 1, but the other way around is not true. 1 might now always indicate a proper conflict. For example, I believe an "empty" cherry-pick will also return 1. I assumed here that 1 would equal a conflict since it's very hard to be sure that a proper conflict occured that would make sense with our resolution suggestion. There are so many different ways that a conflict can occur based on git unit test: https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/t/t3507-cherry-pick-conflict.sh. I am open to suggestion, I just don't know in what way I should parse stdout. Also there might be a solution using the output of git status, but i'm not too familiar with this.

When there is a conflict, the stdout will contain hint: After resolving the conflicts, mark them with, which we could use as an indication of a conflict. It's not so pretty, but it should work and it's unlikely that this will change anytime soon.

However, I'm also okay with just using exitCode === 1 for now. It's just as unlikely that the exit code changes, and it doesn't need to be perfect at this time.

src/test/git.test.ts

src/main.ts

src/git.ts

…tracking with backport_on_conflicts

…yml default value.

vermz99 · 2024-05-10T02:21:49Z

Thanks a lot for the review! 🚀

New Changes

I merged the new feature from main. I added some things to try and support it, but I think it still needs some work to adjust correctly the messages printed in the original PR and draft PR.
I added your suggestion for the while loop
I added the read me
I fixed the default value in the .yml file

Let me know if you want anything else added! Also, I would appreciate it if you could try it on your side and see if it behaves as it should 🙏.

Also, apologies for the 2 accounts shuffling, work forces us to use a different account.

korthout

That's great! Thanks for the fast changes! @vermz99 @AlexVermette-Eaton 🚀

✅ I ran a successful test here (backporting to a branch called conflict): korthout/backport-action-test#371

It first ran with defaults, producing this comment
Then it ran with "conflict_resolution": "draft_commit_conflicts", resulting in this comment, and this pr

❌ I noticed the following that we should change before merging:

We should suggest the safer git push --force-with-lease rather than git push --force
The commit with the conflicts has double quotes surrounding its commit message

🙇 Please adjust this still, and then I'll merge this soon. Or if I find some time during the weekend, I might just pick up these last two items. Anyways, thanks for all the hard work. This looks great!

Also, apologies for the 2 accounts shuffling, work forces us to use a different account.

No worries, I'll just tag both :)

…ease

AlexVermette-Eaton · 2024-05-14T17:44:08Z

Thanks for the review and thank you very much for the testing! 🔥🚀

New Changes

Replace --force with --force-with-lease
Fixed "BACKPORT-CONFLICT" to BACKPORT-CONFLICT

Again don't hesitate if you need additional changes.

When there is a checkout failure, there was no conflict resolution applied. The default should be such that we don't have to care about this parameter.

korthout

🚀 I've tested the feature again, and it works well!

💭 I hope we get feedback from users about it.

💭 I feel improvements remain in the suggestions code, but this will change with #415 anyway. There is no need to spend more time on it now.

LGTM 👍

backport on conflict - initial commit

87d12e0

vermz99 changed the title ~~Add merge_on_conflicts input - from #386~~ Add merge_on_conflicts input Mar 31, 2024

vermz99 marked this pull request as draft March 31, 2024 01:12

vermz99 changed the title ~~Add merge_on_conflicts input~~ Add backport_on_conflicts input Mar 31, 2024

Added unit test for cherry-pick

56b3dd4

AlexVermette-Eaton and others added 2 commits April 3, 2024 15:55

refactor for new commit conflict_resolution flag (#12)

1ec3ef4

* changed param name * refactor for new commit conflict_resolution flag * refactor for new commit conflict_resolution flag * Fix unit test --------- Co-authored-by: Alex Vermette <vermz@hotmail.ca>

dist: build new artifacts

9a4d5cf

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Vermette Lefebvre <AlexVermette-Eaton@users.noreply.github.com>

korthout requested changes May 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'fork/main' - Partial support of remote-…

1614d7d

…tracking with backport_on_conflicts

AlexVermette-Eaton force-pushed the main branch from daf4986 to 414d563 Compare May 10, 2024 02:06

Added suggestion provided in code review. Added ReadMe. Fixed action.…

9161072

…yml default value.

AlexVermette-Eaton force-pushed the main branch from 414d563 to 9161072 Compare May 10, 2024 02:09

vermz99 requested a review from korthout May 10, 2024 02:23

korthout mentioned this pull request May 10, 2024

Add a change that will conflict korthout/backport-action-test#371

Merged

korthout requested changes May 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

Fixed conflit commit message and replaced --force with --force-with-l…

0b50a9c

…ease

vermz99 requested a review from korthout May 18, 2024 19:58

korthout changed the title ~~Add backport_on_conflicts input~~ Add conflict_resolution input May 26, 2024

korthout added 2 commits May 26, 2024 10:26

refactor: make use of default parameter

13c2a2b

When there is a checkout failure, there was no conflict resolution applied. The default should be such that we don't have to care about this parameter.

dist: build new version

0024721

korthout marked this pull request as ready for review May 26, 2024 09:06

korthout approved these changes May 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

korthout merged commit 8e95300 into korthout:main May 26, 2024
1 check passed

korthout mentioned this pull request May 26, 2024

support backport, committing conflicts #386

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add `conflict_resolution` input #417

Add `conflict_resolution` input #417

vermz99 commented Mar 31, 2024 •

edited

Loading

vermz99 commented Mar 31, 2024 •

edited

Loading

korthout commented Mar 31, 2024 •

edited

Loading

vermz99 commented Mar 31, 2024 •

edited

Loading

korthout commented Apr 1, 2024

AlexVermette-Eaton commented Apr 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

korthout commented Apr 5, 2024

korthout left a comment •

edited

Loading

korthout Mar 31, 2024

AlexVermette-Eaton May 10, 2024

korthout May 10, 2024

vermz99 commented May 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

korthout left a comment

AlexVermette-Eaton commented May 14, 2024 •

edited

Loading

korthout left a comment

Add conflict_resolution input #417

Add conflict_resolution input #417

Conversation

vermz99 commented Mar 31, 2024 • edited Loading

Summary

Consideration

Dev Notes

TODO

vermz99 commented Mar 31, 2024 • edited Loading

Issue identified

korthout commented Mar 31, 2024 • edited Loading

vermz99 commented Mar 31, 2024 • edited Loading

korthout commented Apr 1, 2024

AlexVermette-Eaton commented Apr 3, 2024 • edited Loading

What I did

What I did not do

korthout commented Apr 5, 2024

korthout left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

korthout Mar 31, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlexVermette-Eaton May 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

korthout May 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vermz99 commented May 10, 2024 • edited Loading

New Changes

korthout left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlexVermette-Eaton commented May 14, 2024 • edited Loading

New Changes

korthout left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Add `conflict_resolution` input #417

Add `conflict_resolution` input #417

vermz99 commented Mar 31, 2024 •

edited

Loading

vermz99 commented Mar 31, 2024 •

edited

Loading

korthout commented Mar 31, 2024 •

edited

Loading

vermz99 commented Mar 31, 2024 •

edited

Loading

AlexVermette-Eaton commented Apr 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

korthout left a comment •

edited

Loading

vermz99 commented May 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

AlexVermette-Eaton commented May 14, 2024 •

edited

Loading