[RFC PATCH 0/1] add parserelations management command

[Daniel Axtens]

Rohit Sarkar <rohitsarkar5398 at gmail.com> writes:

> The parserelations command will be used to bulk import patch relations into
> Patchwork using a "patch groups" file.
> The patch groups file is structured such that each line contains a
> relation and an optional upstream commit reference.
> Eg patch groups file contents.
> 1 3 4
> 2
> 5 9 10 => <commit-hash-1> <commit-hash-2>
>
> In this case 2 relations will be ingested into Patchwork, (1,3,4) and
> (5,9,10). Further group (5,9,10) also points to two upstream commit
> references.

> Note that before ingesting the relations the existing relations in the
> DB are removed.

I'm not super keen on this bit, it seems too easy to shoot yourself in
the foot.

Can we restrict it to purging the relations of projects that contain the
patches? And require the user to specify the project they expect to be
purged on the command line?

> Currently the commit references are not used, as in Patchwork's model a
> patch points to a single commit reference.

If this patch groups file format is something informal that PaStA
generates, and the commit refs are going to be ignored, would it be
simpler to just process them out beforehand with shell tools in your
PaStA integration?

e.g. whichever of these is most comprehensible to you:

echo '5 9 10 => f00df00d cafecafe' | cut -d= -f1
echo '5 9 10 => f00df00d cafecafe' | awk -F"=>" '{print $1}'
echo '5 9 10 => f00df00d cafecafe' | sed -E 's/([^=]+) =>.*/\1/'

Alternatively, if the patch groups file is a bit more clearly defined,
I'm happy to have the code to ignore the commit refs in patchwork:
include a link to the specification and a more detailed explanation of
why we're ignoring the commit refs.

> Some more tests will be added if this patch looks good.

I toyed a bit with the idea of suggesting that this just be kept
out-of-tree - it's not clear who else would use it, and it's not like
the managment interface changes very quickly. But then I realised that
there's basically no cost for Patchwork to keep it in tree, so sure, go
for it.

I'll give the patch a quick once-over now.

Regards,
Daniel

>
> Rohit Sarkar (1):
>   management: introduce parserelations command
>
>  docs/deployment/management.rst                | 27 +++++++
>  .../management/commands/parserelations.py     | 78 +++++++++++++++++++
>  patchwork/tests/test_management.py            |  7 ++
>  3 files changed, 112 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 patchwork/management/commands/parserelations.py
>
> -- 
> 2.23.0.385.gbc12974a89