| :title: Project Gating |
| |
| Project Gating |
| ============== |
| |
| Traditionally, many software development projects merge changes from |
| developers into the repository, and then identify regressions |
| resulting from those changes (perhaps by running a test suite with a |
| continuous integration system such as Jenkins), followed by more |
| patches to fix those bugs. When the mainline of development is |
| broken, it can be very frustrating for developers and can cause lost |
| productivity, particularly so when the number of contributors or |
| contributions is large. |
| |
| The process of gating attempts to prevent changes that introduce |
| regressions from being merged. This keeps the mainline of development |
| open and working for all developers, and only when a change is |
| confirmed to work without disruption is it merged. |
| |
| Many projects practice an informal method of gating where developers |
| with mainline commit access ensure that a test suite runs before |
| merging a change. With more developers, more changes, and more |
| comprehensive test suites, that process does not scale very well, and |
| is not the best use of a developer's time. Zuul can help automate |
| this process, with a particular emphasis on ensuring large numbers of |
| changes are tested correctly. |
| |
| Zuul was designed to handle the workflow of the OpenStack project, but |
| can be used with any project. |
| |
| Testing in parallel |
| ------------------- |
| |
| A particular focus of Zuul is ensuring correctly ordered testing of |
| changes in parallel. A gating system should always test each change |
| applied to the tip of the branch exactly as it is going to be merged. |
| A simple way to do that would be to test one change at a time, and |
| merge it only if it passes tests. That works very well, but if |
| changes take a long time to test, developers may have to wait a long |
| time for their changes to make it into the repository. With some |
| projects, it may take hours to test changes, and it is easy for |
| developers to create changes at a rate faster than they can be tested |
| and merged. |
| |
| Zuul's DependentPipelineManager allows for parallel execution of test |
| jobs for gating while ensuring changes are tested correctly, exactly |
| as if they had been tested one at a time. It does this by performing |
| speculative execution of test jobs; it assumes that all jobs will |
| succeed and tests them in parallel accordingly. If they do succeed, |
| they can all be merged. However, if one fails, then changes that were |
| expecting it to succeed are re-tested without the failed change. In |
| the best case, as many changes as execution contexts are available may |
| be tested in parallel and merged at once. In the worst case, changes |
| are tested one at a time (as each subsequent change fails, changes |
| behind it start again). In practice, the OpenStack project observes |
| something closer to the best case. |
| |
| For example, if a core developer approves five changes in rapid |
| succession:: |
| |
| A, B, C, D, E |
| |
| Zuul queues those changes in the order they were approved, and notes |
| that each subsequent change depends on the one ahead of it merging: |
| |
| .. blockdiag:: |
| |
| blockdiag foo { |
| node_width = 40; |
| span_width = 40; |
| A <- B <- C <- D <- E; |
| } |
| |
| Zuul then starts immediately testing all of the changes in parallel. |
| But in the case of changes that depend on others, it instructs the |
| test system to include the changes ahead of it, with the assumption |
| they pass. That means jobs testing change *B* include change *A* as |
| well:: |
| |
| Jobs for A: merge change A, then test |
| Jobs for B: merge changes A and B, then test |
| Jobs for C: merge changes A, B and C, then test |
| Jobs for D: merge changes A, B, C and D, then test |
| Jobs for E: merge changes A, B, C, D and E, then test |
| |
| Hence jobs triggered to tests A will only test A and ignore B, C, D: |
| |
| .. blockdiag:: |
| |
| blockdiag foo { |
| node_width = 40; |
| span_width = 40; |
| master -> A -> B -> C -> D -> E; |
| group jobs_for_A { |
| label = "Merged changes for A"; |
| master -> A; |
| } |
| group ignored_to_test_A { |
| label = "Ignored changes"; |
| color = "lightgray"; |
| B -> C -> D -> E; |
| } |
| } |
| |
| The jobs for E would include the whole dependency chain: A, B, C, D, and E. |
| E will be tested assuming A, B, C, and D passed: |
| |
| .. blockdiag:: |
| |
| blockdiag foo { |
| node_width = 40; |
| span_width = 40; |
| group jobs_for_E { |
| label = "Merged changes for E"; |
| master -> A -> B -> C -> D -> E; |
| } |
| } |
| |
| If changes *A* and *B* pass tests (green), and *C*, *D*, and *E* fail (red): |
| |
| .. blockdiag:: |
| |
| blockdiag foo { |
| node_width = 40; |
| span_width = 40; |
| |
| A [color = lightgreen]; |
| B [color = lightgreen]; |
| C [color = pink]; |
| D [color = pink]; |
| E [color = pink]; |
| |
| master <- A <- B <- C <- D <- E; |
| } |
| |
| Zuul will merge change *A* followed by change *B*, leaving this queue: |
| |
| .. blockdiag:: |
| |
| blockdiag foo { |
| node_width = 40; |
| span_width = 40; |
| |
| C [color = pink]; |
| D [color = pink]; |
| E [color = pink]; |
| |
| C <- D <- E; |
| } |
| |
| Since *D* was dependent on *C*, it is not clear whether *D*'s failure is the |
| result of a defect in *D* or *C*: |
| |
| .. blockdiag:: |
| |
| blockdiag foo { |
| node_width = 40; |
| span_width = 40; |
| |
| C [color = pink]; |
| D [label = "D\n?"]; |
| E [label = "E\n?"]; |
| |
| C <- D <- E; |
| } |
| |
| Since *C* failed, Zuul will report its failure and drop *C* from the queue, |
| keeping D and E: |
| |
| .. blockdiag:: |
| |
| blockdiag foo { |
| node_width = 40; |
| span_width = 40; |
| |
| D [label = "D\n?"]; |
| E [label = "E\n?"]; |
| |
| D <- E; |
| } |
| |
| This queue is the same as if two new changes had just arrived, so Zuul |
| starts the process again testing *D* against the tip of the branch, and |
| *E* against *D*: |
| |
| .. blockdiag:: |
| |
| blockdiag foo { |
| node_width = 40; |
| span_width = 40; |
| master -> D -> E; |
| group jobs_for_D { |
| label = "Merged changes for D"; |
| master -> D; |
| } |
| group ignored_to_test_D { |
| label = "Skip"; |
| color = "lightgray"; |
| E; |
| } |
| } |
| |
| .. blockdiag:: |
| |
| blockdiag foo { |
| node_width = 40; |
| span_width = 40; |
| group jobs_for_E { |
| label = "Merged changes for E"; |
| master -> D -> E; |
| } |
| } |
| |
| |
| Cross Project Testing |
| --------------------- |
| |
| When your projects are closely coupled together, you want to make sure |
| changes entering the gate are going to be tested with the version of |
| other projects currently enqueued in the gate (since they will |
| eventually be merged and might introduce breaking features). |
| |
| Such relationships can be defined in Zuul configuration by registering |
| a job in a DependentPipeline of several projects. Whenever a change |
| enters such a pipeline, it will create references for the other |
| projects as well. As an example, given a main project ``acme`` and a |
| plugin ``plugin`` you can define a job ``acme-tests`` which should be |
| run for both projects: |
| |
| .. code-block:: yaml |
| |
| pipelines: |
| - name: gate |
| manager: DependentPipelineManager |
| |
| projects:: |
| - name: acme |
| gate: |
| - acme-tests |
| - name: plugin |
| gate: |
| - acme-tests # Register job again |
| |
| Whenever a change enters the ``gate`` pipeline queue, Zuul creates a reference |
| for it. For each subsequent change, an additional reference is created for the |
| changes ahead in the queue. As a result, you will always be able to fetch the |
| future state of your project dependencies for each change in the queue. |
| |
| Based on the pipeline and project definitions above, three changes are |
| inserted in the ``gate`` pipeline with the associated references: |
| |
| ======== ======= ====== ========= |
| Change Project Branch Zuul Ref. |
| ======== ======= ====== ========= |
| Change 1 acme master master/Z1 |
| Change 2 plugin stable stable/Z2 |
| Change 3 plugin master master/Z3 |
| ======== ======= ====== ========= |
| |
| Since the changes enter a DependentPipelineManager pipeline, Zuul creates |
| additional references: |
| |
| ====== ======= ========= ============================= |
| Change Project Zuul Ref. Description |
| ====== ======= ========= ============================= |
| 1 acme master/Z1 acme master + change 1 |
| ------ ------- --------- ----------------------------- |
| 2 acme master/Z2 acme master + change 1 |
| 2 plugin stable/Z2 plugin stable + change 2 |
| ------ ------- --------- ----------------------------- |
| 3 acme master/Z3 acme master + change 1 |
| 3 plugin stable/Z3 plugin stable + change 2 |
| 3 plugin master/Z3 plugin master + change 3 |
| ====== ======= ========= ============================= |
| |
| In order to test change 3, you would clone both repositories and simply |
| fetch the Z3 reference for each combination of project/branch you are |
| interested in testing. For example, you could fetch ``acme`` with |
| master/Z3 and ``plugin`` with master/Z3 and thus have ``acme`` with |
| change 1 applied as the expected state for when Change 3 would merge. |
| When your job fetches several repositories without changes ahead in the |
| queue, they may not have a Z reference in which case you can just check |
| out the branch. |
| |
| |
| Cross Repository Dependencies |
| ----------------------------- |
| |
| Zuul permits users to specify dependencies across repositories. Using |
| a special header in Git commit messages, Users may specify that a |
| change depends on another change in any repository known to Zuul. |
| |
| Zuul's cross-repository dependencies (CRD) behave like a directed |
| acyclic graph (DAG), like git itself, to indicate a one-way dependency |
| relationship between changes in different git repositories. Change A |
| may depend on B, but B may not depend on A. |
| |
| To use them, include "Depends-On: <gerrit-change-id>" in the footer of |
| a commit message. Use the full Change-ID ('I' + 40 characters). |
| |
| |
| Gate Pipeline |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| |
| When Zuul sees CRD changes, it serializes them in the usual manner when |
| enqueuing them into a pipeline. This means that if change A depends on |
| B, then when they are added to the gate pipeline, B will appear first |
| and A will follow. If tests for B fail, both B and A will be removed |
| from the pipeline, and it will not be possible for A to merge until B |
| does. |
| |
| Note that if changes with CRD do not share a change queue then Zuul |
| is unable to enqueue them together, and the first will be required to |
| merge before the second is enqueued. |
| |
| Check Pipeline |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| |
| When changes are enqueued into the check pipeline, all of the related |
| dependencies (both normal git-dependencies that come from parent commits |
| as well as CRD changes) appear in a dependency graph, as in gate. This |
| means that even in the check pipeline, your change will be tested with |
| its dependency. So changes that were previously unable to be fully |
| tested until a related change landed in a different repo may now be |
| tested together from the start. |
| |
| All of the changes are still independent (so you will note that the |
| whole pipeline does not share a graph as in gate), but for each change |
| tested, all of its dependencies are visually connected to it, and they |
| are used to construct the git references that Zuul uses when testing. |
| When looking at this graph on the status page, you will note that the |
| dependencies show up as grey dots, while the actual change tested shows |
| up as red or green. This is to indicate that the grey changes are only |
| there to establish dependencies. Even if one of the dependencies is |
| also being tested, it will show up as a grey dot when used as a |
| dependency, but separately and additionally will appear as its own red |
| or green dot for its test. |
| |
| Multiple Changes |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| |
| A Gerrit change ID may refer to multiple changes (on multiple branches |
| of the same project, or even multiple projects). In these cases, Zuul |
| will treat all of the changes with that change ID as dependencies. So |
| if you say that change in project A Depends-On a change ID that has |
| changes in two branches of project B, then when testing the change to |
| project A, both project B changes will be applied, and when deciding |
| whether the project A change can merge, both changes must merge ahead |
| of it. |
| |
| A change may depend on more than one Gerrit change ID as well. So it |
| is possible for a change in project A to depend on a change in project |
| B and a change in project C. Simply add more "Depends-On:" lines to |
| the footer. |
| |
| Cycles |
| ~~~~~~ |
| |
| If a cycle is created by use of CRD, Zuul will abort its work very |
| early. There will be no message in Gerrit and no changes that are part |
| of the cycle will be enqueued into any pipeline. This is to protect |
| Zuul from infinite loops. |