daml/azure-pipelines.yml

844 lines
34 KiB
YAML
Raw Normal View History

# Copyright (c) 2020 Digital Asset (Switzerland) GmbH and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
# SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
# Azure Pipelines file, see https://aka.ms/yaml
# Enable builds on all branches
trigger:
# Build every commit as our release process relies on
# the release process being built alone.
batch: false
branches:
include:
- master
- release/*
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
# Enable PR triggers that target the master branch
pr:
autoCancel: true # cancel previous builds on push
branches:
include:
- master
- release/*
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
jobs:
- job: git_sha
pool:
name: 'linux-pool'
add default machine capability (#5912) add default machine capability We semi-regularly need to do work that has the potential to disrupt a machine's local cache, rendering it broken for other streams of work. This can include upgrading nix, upgrading Bazel, debugging caching issues, or anything related to Windows. Right now we do not have any good solution for these situations. We can either not do those streams of work, or we can proceed with them and just accept that all other builds may get affected depending on which machine they get assigned to. Debugging broken nodes is particularly tricky as we do not have any way to force a build to run on a given node. This PR aims at providing a better alternative by (ab)using an Azure Pipelines feature called [capabilities](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/agents/agents?view=azure-devops&tabs=browser#capabilities). The idea behind capabilities is that you assign a set of tags to a machine, and then a job can express its [demands](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/process/demands?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml), i.e. specify a set of tags machines need to have in order to run it. Support for this is fairly badly documented. We can gather from the documentation that a job can specify two things about a capability (through its `demands`): that a given tag exists, and that a given tag has an exact specified value. In particular, a job cannot specify that a capability should _not_ be present, meaning we cannot rely on, say, adding a "broken" tag to broken machines. Documentation on how to set capabilities for an agent is basically nonexistent, but [looking at the code](https://github.com/microsoft/azure-pipelines-agent/blob/master/src/Microsoft.VisualStudio.Services.Agent/Capabilities/UserCapabilitiesProvider.cs) indicates that they can be set by using a simple `key=value`-formatted text file, provided we can find the right place to put this file. This PR adds this file to our Linux, macOS and Windows node init scripts to define an `assignment` capability and adds a demand for a `default` value on each job. From then on, when we hit a case where we want a PR to run on a specific node, and to prevent other PRs from running on that node, we can manually override the capability from the Azure UI and update the demand in the relevant YAML file in the PR. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-09 19:21:42 +03:00
demands: assignment -equals default
steps:
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
if [ "$(Build.Reason)" == "PullRequest" ]; then
echo "##vso[task.setvariable variable=branch;isOutput=true]$(git rev-parse HEAD^2)"
echo "##vso[task.setvariable variable=master;isOutput=true]$(git rev-parse HEAD^1)"
echo "##vso[task.setvariable variable=fork_point;isOutput=true]$(git merge-base $(git rev-parse HEAD^1) $(git rev-parse HEAD^2))"
else
echo "##vso[task.setvariable variable=branch;isOutput=true]$(git rev-parse HEAD)"
echo "##vso[task.setvariable variable=master;isOutput=true]$(git rev-parse HEAD^1)"
echo "##vso[task.setvariable variable=fork_point;isOutput=true]$(git rev-parse HEAD^1)"
fi
name: out
- job: check_standard_change_label
dependsOn:
- git_sha
variables:
fork_sha: $[ dependencies.git_sha.outputs['out.fork_point'] ]
branch_sha: $[ dependencies.git_sha.outputs['out.branch'] ]
condition: eq(variables['Build.Reason'], 'PullRequest')
pool:
name: 'linux-pool'
add default machine capability (#5912) add default machine capability We semi-regularly need to do work that has the potential to disrupt a machine's local cache, rendering it broken for other streams of work. This can include upgrading nix, upgrading Bazel, debugging caching issues, or anything related to Windows. Right now we do not have any good solution for these situations. We can either not do those streams of work, or we can proceed with them and just accept that all other builds may get affected depending on which machine they get assigned to. Debugging broken nodes is particularly tricky as we do not have any way to force a build to run on a given node. This PR aims at providing a better alternative by (ab)using an Azure Pipelines feature called [capabilities](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/agents/agents?view=azure-devops&tabs=browser#capabilities). The idea behind capabilities is that you assign a set of tags to a machine, and then a job can express its [demands](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/process/demands?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml), i.e. specify a set of tags machines need to have in order to run it. Support for this is fairly badly documented. We can gather from the documentation that a job can specify two things about a capability (through its `demands`): that a given tag exists, and that a given tag has an exact specified value. In particular, a job cannot specify that a capability should _not_ be present, meaning we cannot rely on, say, adding a "broken" tag to broken machines. Documentation on how to set capabilities for an agent is basically nonexistent, but [looking at the code](https://github.com/microsoft/azure-pipelines-agent/blob/master/src/Microsoft.VisualStudio.Services.Agent/Capabilities/UserCapabilitiesProvider.cs) indicates that they can be set by using a simple `key=value`-formatted text file, provided we can find the right place to put this file. This PR adds this file to our Linux, macOS and Windows node init scripts to define an `assignment` capability and adds a demand for a `default` value on each job. From then on, when we hit a case where we want a PR to run on a specific node, and to prevent other PRs from running on that node, we can manually override the capability from the Azure UI and update the demand in the relevant YAML file in the PR. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-09 19:21:42 +03:00
demands: assignment -equals default
steps:
- checkout: self
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
has_changed () {
git diff $(fork_sha) $(branch_sha) --name-only | grep -q "^$1"
}
fail_if_missing_std_change_label () {
curl https://api.github.com/repos/digital-asset/daml/pulls/$PR -s | jq -r '.labels[].name' | grep -q '^Standard-Change$'
}
if has_changed "infra/" || has_changed "LATEST"; then
fail_if_missing_std_change_label
fi
env:
PR: $(System.PullRequest.PullRequestNumber)
- job: check_changelog_entry
dependsOn:
- git_sha
variables:
fork_sha: $[ dependencies.git_sha.outputs['out.fork_point'] ]
condition: eq(variables['Build.Reason'], 'PullRequest')
pool:
name: 'linux-pool'
add default machine capability (#5912) add default machine capability We semi-regularly need to do work that has the potential to disrupt a machine's local cache, rendering it broken for other streams of work. This can include upgrading nix, upgrading Bazel, debugging caching issues, or anything related to Windows. Right now we do not have any good solution for these situations. We can either not do those streams of work, or we can proceed with them and just accept that all other builds may get affected depending on which machine they get assigned to. Debugging broken nodes is particularly tricky as we do not have any way to force a build to run on a given node. This PR aims at providing a better alternative by (ab)using an Azure Pipelines feature called [capabilities](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/agents/agents?view=azure-devops&tabs=browser#capabilities). The idea behind capabilities is that you assign a set of tags to a machine, and then a job can express its [demands](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/process/demands?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml), i.e. specify a set of tags machines need to have in order to run it. Support for this is fairly badly documented. We can gather from the documentation that a job can specify two things about a capability (through its `demands`): that a given tag exists, and that a given tag has an exact specified value. In particular, a job cannot specify that a capability should _not_ be present, meaning we cannot rely on, say, adding a "broken" tag to broken machines. Documentation on how to set capabilities for an agent is basically nonexistent, but [looking at the code](https://github.com/microsoft/azure-pipelines-agent/blob/master/src/Microsoft.VisualStudio.Services.Agent/Capabilities/UserCapabilitiesProvider.cs) indicates that they can be set by using a simple `key=value`-formatted text file, provided we can find the right place to put this file. This PR adds this file to our Linux, macOS and Windows node init scripts to define an `assignment` capability and adds a demand for a `default` value on each job. From then on, when we hit a case where we want a PR to run on a specific node, and to prevent other PRs from running on that node, we can manually override the capability from the Azure UI and update the demand in the relevant YAML file in the PR. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-09 19:21:42 +03:00
demands: assignment -equals default
steps:
- checkout: self
- bash: ci/check-changelog.sh $(fork_sha)
- template: ci/da-ghc-lib/compile.yml
parameters:
final_job_name: da_ghc_lib
- job: Linux
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
dependsOn:
- da_ghc_lib
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
- check_for_release
variables:
release_sha: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_sha'] ]
release_tag: $[ coalesce(dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_tag'], '0.0.0') ]
trigger_sha: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.trigger_sha'] ]
is_release: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.is_release'] ]
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
timeoutInMinutes: 360
pool:
name: 'linux-pool'
add default machine capability (#5912) add default machine capability We semi-regularly need to do work that has the potential to disrupt a machine's local cache, rendering it broken for other streams of work. This can include upgrading nix, upgrading Bazel, debugging caching issues, or anything related to Windows. Right now we do not have any good solution for these situations. We can either not do those streams of work, or we can proceed with them and just accept that all other builds may get affected depending on which machine they get assigned to. Debugging broken nodes is particularly tricky as we do not have any way to force a build to run on a given node. This PR aims at providing a better alternative by (ab)using an Azure Pipelines feature called [capabilities](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/agents/agents?view=azure-devops&tabs=browser#capabilities). The idea behind capabilities is that you assign a set of tags to a machine, and then a job can express its [demands](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/process/demands?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml), i.e. specify a set of tags machines need to have in order to run it. Support for this is fairly badly documented. We can gather from the documentation that a job can specify two things about a capability (through its `demands`): that a given tag exists, and that a given tag has an exact specified value. In particular, a job cannot specify that a capability should _not_ be present, meaning we cannot rely on, say, adding a "broken" tag to broken machines. Documentation on how to set capabilities for an agent is basically nonexistent, but [looking at the code](https://github.com/microsoft/azure-pipelines-agent/blob/master/src/Microsoft.VisualStudio.Services.Agent/Capabilities/UserCapabilitiesProvider.cs) indicates that they can be set by using a simple `key=value`-formatted text file, provided we can find the right place to put this file. This PR adds this file to our Linux, macOS and Windows node init scripts to define an `assignment` capability and adds a demand for a `default` value on each job. From then on, when we hit a case where we want a PR to run on a specific node, and to prevent other PRs from running on that node, we can manually override the capability from the Azure UI and update the demand in the relevant YAML file in the PR. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-09 19:21:42 +03:00
demands: assignment -equals default
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
steps:
- template: ci/report-start.yml
- checkout: self
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
git checkout $(release_sha)
git checkout $(trigger_sha) -- docs/source/support/release-notes.rst
name: checkout_release
condition: eq(variables.is_release, 'true')
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
- template: ci/build-unix.yml
parameters:
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
release_tag: $(release_tag)
name: 'linux'
fix passing is_release through (#4745) Somehow, in the current setup, the publish steps do not get executed on master. This is what Azure reports: ``` Evaluating: and(succeeded(), eq('$(is_release)', 'true'), eq(variables['Build.SourceBranchName'], 'master'), eq('linux', 'linux')) Expanded: and(True, eq('$(is_release)', 'true'), eq(variables['Build.SourceBranchName'], 'master'), eq('linux', 'linux')) Result: False ``` So it looks like, in the condition, `${{parameters.is_release}}` evaluates to the literal string `$(is_release)`. If we look at the point of invocation of the ~function~ template, we can see: ``` - template: ci/build-unix.yml parameters: release_tag: $(release_tag) name: 'linux' is_release: $(is_release) ``` so it does not seem completely crazy. However, according to the documentation, we should expect that to be replaced by the value of the corresponding variable, as per: ``` variables: release_sha: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_sha'] ] release_tag: $[ coalesce(dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_tag'], '0.0.0') ] trigger_sha: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.trigger_sha'] ] is_release: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.is_release'] ] ``` What's interesting here is that, within `build-unix.yml`, we are also using `release_tag` in the exact same way: ``` - bash: ./build.sh "_$(uname)" displayName: 'Build' env: DAML_SDK_RELEASE_VERSION: ${{parameters.release_tag}} ``` and this time output from the build seems to show the value being correctly substituted: ``` damlc - Compiler and IDE backend for the Digital Asset Modelling Language SDK Version: 0.13.55-snapshot.20200226.3266.d58bb459 Usage: <interactive> COMMAND Invoke the DAML compiler. Use -h for help. ``` My current guess is that the (undocumented, as far as I can tell) evaluation order is as follows: 1. In the template, syntactically replace all the parameters. 2. In the job definition, replace the call to the template with the code of the template. So it is as if we had written the template directly in the `azure-pipelines.yml` file, with `$(release_tag)` and `$(is_release)`. 3. Run the build. When we reach the time to run this specific job, we can evaluate the expressions for the variables and replace them in the rest of the job. So what is going wrong? I believe the issue is with the quotes, preventing the substitution of `is_release`. They came directly from the [documented syntax](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/process/conditions?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml#use-a-template-parameter-as-part-of-a-condition), but if the above evaluation order is correct, they should not be there. There are actually two things going wrong here. The first one is that the syntax `$()` is used to substitute a value in what Azure considers a string. This is the case for `env` keys. However, the `condition` key is not a string, it is an Azure "expression". Expressions have their own evaluation rules and syntax, and in particular, `$()` is not a substitution rule there, so when it sees `$()` in a string in an expression (due to the quoptes), it leaves it alone. Removing the quotes does not directly help, though, as we then end with ``` condition: eq($(is_release), 'true') ``` and `$()` is not valid syntax in an expression. The way to use variables in an expression is `variables.name` (or `variables["name"]`, because why have only one?). So that means we have to pass variables to the template in different ways depending on how they will be used. So much fun. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-27 16:33:20 +03:00
is_release: variables.is_release
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
eval "$(./dev-env/bin/dade-assist)"
bazel build //release:release
./bazel-bin/release/release --release-dir "$(mktemp -d)"
condition: and(succeeded(), ne(variables['is_release'], 'true'))
2019-07-04 17:22:22 +03:00
- template: ci/tell-slack-failed.yml
parameters:
trigger_sha: '$(trigger_sha)'
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
- template: ci/report-end.yml
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
- job: macOS
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
dependsOn:
- da_ghc_lib
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
- check_for_release
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
timeoutInMinutes: 360
pool:
name: macOS-pool
2019-07-31 12:23:43 +03:00
variables:
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
release_sha: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_sha'] ]
release_tag: $[ coalesce(dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_tag'], '0.0.0') ]
trigger_sha: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.trigger_sha'] ]
is_release: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.is_release'] ]
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
steps:
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
- template: ci/report-start.yml
- template: ci/clear-shared-segments-macos.yml
- checkout: self
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
git checkout $(release_sha)
git checkout $(trigger_sha) -- docs/source/support/release-notes.rst
name: checkout_release
condition: eq(variables.is_release, 'true')
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
- template: ci/build-unix.yml
parameters:
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
release_tag: $(release_tag)
name: macos
fix passing is_release through (#4745) Somehow, in the current setup, the publish steps do not get executed on master. This is what Azure reports: ``` Evaluating: and(succeeded(), eq('$(is_release)', 'true'), eq(variables['Build.SourceBranchName'], 'master'), eq('linux', 'linux')) Expanded: and(True, eq('$(is_release)', 'true'), eq(variables['Build.SourceBranchName'], 'master'), eq('linux', 'linux')) Result: False ``` So it looks like, in the condition, `${{parameters.is_release}}` evaluates to the literal string `$(is_release)`. If we look at the point of invocation of the ~function~ template, we can see: ``` - template: ci/build-unix.yml parameters: release_tag: $(release_tag) name: 'linux' is_release: $(is_release) ``` so it does not seem completely crazy. However, according to the documentation, we should expect that to be replaced by the value of the corresponding variable, as per: ``` variables: release_sha: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_sha'] ] release_tag: $[ coalesce(dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_tag'], '0.0.0') ] trigger_sha: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.trigger_sha'] ] is_release: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.is_release'] ] ``` What's interesting here is that, within `build-unix.yml`, we are also using `release_tag` in the exact same way: ``` - bash: ./build.sh "_$(uname)" displayName: 'Build' env: DAML_SDK_RELEASE_VERSION: ${{parameters.release_tag}} ``` and this time output from the build seems to show the value being correctly substituted: ``` damlc - Compiler and IDE backend for the Digital Asset Modelling Language SDK Version: 0.13.55-snapshot.20200226.3266.d58bb459 Usage: <interactive> COMMAND Invoke the DAML compiler. Use -h for help. ``` My current guess is that the (undocumented, as far as I can tell) evaluation order is as follows: 1. In the template, syntactically replace all the parameters. 2. In the job definition, replace the call to the template with the code of the template. So it is as if we had written the template directly in the `azure-pipelines.yml` file, with `$(release_tag)` and `$(is_release)`. 3. Run the build. When we reach the time to run this specific job, we can evaluate the expressions for the variables and replace them in the rest of the job. So what is going wrong? I believe the issue is with the quotes, preventing the substitution of `is_release`. They came directly from the [documented syntax](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/process/conditions?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml#use-a-template-parameter-as-part-of-a-condition), but if the above evaluation order is correct, they should not be there. There are actually two things going wrong here. The first one is that the syntax `$()` is used to substitute a value in what Azure considers a string. This is the case for `env` keys. However, the `condition` key is not a string, it is an Azure "expression". Expressions have their own evaluation rules and syntax, and in particular, `$()` is not a substitution rule there, so when it sees `$()` in a string in an expression (due to the quoptes), it leaves it alone. Removing the quotes does not directly help, though, as we then end with ``` condition: eq($(is_release), 'true') ``` and `$()` is not valid syntax in an expression. The way to use variables in an expression is `variables.name` (or `variables["name"]`, because why have only one?). So that means we have to pass variables to the template in different ways depending on how they will be used. So much fun. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-27 16:33:20 +03:00
is_release: variables.is_release
2019-07-04 17:22:22 +03:00
- template: ci/tell-slack-failed.yml
parameters:
trigger_sha: '$(trigger_sha)'
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
- template: ci/report-end.yml
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
- template: ci/patch_bazel_windows/compile.yml
parameters:
final_job_name: patch_bazel_windows
- job: Windows
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
dependsOn:
- da_ghc_lib
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
- check_for_release
- patch_bazel_windows
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
variables:
release_sha: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_sha'] ]
release_tag: $[ coalesce(dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_tag'], '0.0.0') ]
trigger_sha: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.trigger_sha'] ]
is_release: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.is_release'] ]
timeoutInMinutes: 360
pool:
name: 'windows-pool'
add default machine capability (#5912) add default machine capability We semi-regularly need to do work that has the potential to disrupt a machine's local cache, rendering it broken for other streams of work. This can include upgrading nix, upgrading Bazel, debugging caching issues, or anything related to Windows. Right now we do not have any good solution for these situations. We can either not do those streams of work, or we can proceed with them and just accept that all other builds may get affected depending on which machine they get assigned to. Debugging broken nodes is particularly tricky as we do not have any way to force a build to run on a given node. This PR aims at providing a better alternative by (ab)using an Azure Pipelines feature called [capabilities](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/agents/agents?view=azure-devops&tabs=browser#capabilities). The idea behind capabilities is that you assign a set of tags to a machine, and then a job can express its [demands](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/process/demands?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml), i.e. specify a set of tags machines need to have in order to run it. Support for this is fairly badly documented. We can gather from the documentation that a job can specify two things about a capability (through its `demands`): that a given tag exists, and that a given tag has an exact specified value. In particular, a job cannot specify that a capability should _not_ be present, meaning we cannot rely on, say, adding a "broken" tag to broken machines. Documentation on how to set capabilities for an agent is basically nonexistent, but [looking at the code](https://github.com/microsoft/azure-pipelines-agent/blob/master/src/Microsoft.VisualStudio.Services.Agent/Capabilities/UserCapabilitiesProvider.cs) indicates that they can be set by using a simple `key=value`-formatted text file, provided we can find the right place to put this file. This PR adds this file to our Linux, macOS and Windows node init scripts to define an `assignment` capability and adds a demand for a `default` value on each job. From then on, when we hit a case where we want a PR to run on a specific node, and to prevent other PRs from running on that node, we can manually override the capability from the Azure UI and update the demand in the relevant YAML file in the PR. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-09 19:21:42 +03:00
demands: assignment -equals default
steps:
- template: ci/report-start.yml
- checkout: self
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
git checkout $(release_sha)
git checkout $(trigger_sha) -- docs/source/support/release-notes.rst
name: checkout_release
condition: eq(variables.is_release, 'true')
- template: ci/build-windows.yml
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
parameters:
release_tag: $(release_tag)
fix passing is_release through (#4745) Somehow, in the current setup, the publish steps do not get executed on master. This is what Azure reports: ``` Evaluating: and(succeeded(), eq('$(is_release)', 'true'), eq(variables['Build.SourceBranchName'], 'master'), eq('linux', 'linux')) Expanded: and(True, eq('$(is_release)', 'true'), eq(variables['Build.SourceBranchName'], 'master'), eq('linux', 'linux')) Result: False ``` So it looks like, in the condition, `${{parameters.is_release}}` evaluates to the literal string `$(is_release)`. If we look at the point of invocation of the ~function~ template, we can see: ``` - template: ci/build-unix.yml parameters: release_tag: $(release_tag) name: 'linux' is_release: $(is_release) ``` so it does not seem completely crazy. However, according to the documentation, we should expect that to be replaced by the value of the corresponding variable, as per: ``` variables: release_sha: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_sha'] ] release_tag: $[ coalesce(dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_tag'], '0.0.0') ] trigger_sha: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.trigger_sha'] ] is_release: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.is_release'] ] ``` What's interesting here is that, within `build-unix.yml`, we are also using `release_tag` in the exact same way: ``` - bash: ./build.sh "_$(uname)" displayName: 'Build' env: DAML_SDK_RELEASE_VERSION: ${{parameters.release_tag}} ``` and this time output from the build seems to show the value being correctly substituted: ``` damlc - Compiler and IDE backend for the Digital Asset Modelling Language SDK Version: 0.13.55-snapshot.20200226.3266.d58bb459 Usage: <interactive> COMMAND Invoke the DAML compiler. Use -h for help. ``` My current guess is that the (undocumented, as far as I can tell) evaluation order is as follows: 1. In the template, syntactically replace all the parameters. 2. In the job definition, replace the call to the template with the code of the template. So it is as if we had written the template directly in the `azure-pipelines.yml` file, with `$(release_tag)` and `$(is_release)`. 3. Run the build. When we reach the time to run this specific job, we can evaluate the expressions for the variables and replace them in the rest of the job. So what is going wrong? I believe the issue is with the quotes, preventing the substitution of `is_release`. They came directly from the [documented syntax](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/process/conditions?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml#use-a-template-parameter-as-part-of-a-condition), but if the above evaluation order is correct, they should not be there. There are actually two things going wrong here. The first one is that the syntax `$()` is used to substitute a value in what Azure considers a string. This is the case for `env` keys. However, the `condition` key is not a string, it is an Azure "expression". Expressions have their own evaluation rules and syntax, and in particular, `$()` is not a substitution rule there, so when it sees `$()` in a string in an expression (due to the quoptes), it leaves it alone. Removing the quotes does not directly help, though, as we then end with ``` condition: eq($(is_release), 'true') ``` and `$()` is not valid syntax in an expression. The way to use variables in an expression is `variables.name` (or `variables["name"]`, because why have only one?). So that means we have to pass variables to the template in different ways depending on how they will be used. So much fun. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-27 16:33:20 +03:00
is_release: variables.is_release
- task: PublishBuildArtifacts@1
condition: succeededOrFailed()
inputs:
pathtoPublish: '$(Build.StagingDirectory)'
artifactName: 'Bazel Logs'
2019-07-04 17:22:22 +03:00
- template: ci/tell-slack-failed.yml
parameters:
trigger_sha: '$(trigger_sha)'
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
- template: ci/report-end.yml
- job: compatibility_ts_libs
dependsOn:
- da_ghc_lib
- check_for_release
Bump timeouts in compat tests (#6689) This bumps the timeout of the compat tests on PRs to 360 minutes matching other jobs on a PR (we mainly hit this if ghc-lib is rebuilt) and the timeout on the daily jobs to 720 minutes (we hit this if _everything_ is rebuilt). I am slightly worried about the timeout on the daily job. After having taken a look at it, there are a few reasons how we ended up here: 1. We started including more tests, e.g., sandbox-classic. Not much we can do here, those tests are useful. 2. We have a very large number of snapshots for 1.3.0. There are a few reasons for this: 1. Timing: We branched off early for the 1.2.0 release so the first snapshot for 1.3 was on June 3th. For 1.4 it looks like the first snapshot will be on July 15th so that’s roughly 2 extra snapshots just due to timing. 2. Additional snapshots: We had one broken snapshot due to a broken VSCode extension that we didn’t delete (probably not worth doing at this point). We also had to backport to an old snapshot which resulted in another extra snapshot. We also had one extra snapshot which was supposed to be the RC but wasn’t since the ANF revert needed to go in. The only thing that is clearly useless is the one broken snapshot but that doesn’t change things that much. I see 2 orthogonal options for improving this assuming we agree that the current runtime is worryingly high. 1. Prune snapshots more aggressively, e.g., only include the last 3 snapshots. That’s a pretty arbitrary decision but it would enforce a hard limit. 2. Reduce test combinations. E.g., only test snapshots vs stable releases but not snapshots vs snapshots. 3. We end up forcing a full build quite frequently. Here are just 2 examples of how we’ve done that so far. 1. Upgrade rules_haskell. Basically all tests are run by a Haskell binary so this forces a full rebuild. 2. Change runfiles of `daml`. I don’t think there is much we can do about 1 or 3 which leaves us with 2. One not entirely unreasonable option is to just do nothing. We did have periods where things went pretty smoothly for the most part and each month we reset to a much smaller number of releases (we also have to start throwing out old stable releases at some point). Otherwise reducing the number of test combinations seems the most promising option to me. changelog_begin changelog_end
2020-07-10 15:34:53 +03:00
timeoutInMinutes: 360
pool:
name: linux-pool
demands: assignment -equals default
steps:
- template: ci/report-start.yml
- checkout: self
- template: ci/compatibility_ts_libs.yml
- template: ci/tell-slack-failed.yml
- template: ci/report-end.yml
- job: compatibility_linux
dependsOn:
- da_ghc_lib
- check_for_release
- compatibility_ts_libs
Bump timeouts in compat tests (#6689) This bumps the timeout of the compat tests on PRs to 360 minutes matching other jobs on a PR (we mainly hit this if ghc-lib is rebuilt) and the timeout on the daily jobs to 720 minutes (we hit this if _everything_ is rebuilt). I am slightly worried about the timeout on the daily job. After having taken a look at it, there are a few reasons how we ended up here: 1. We started including more tests, e.g., sandbox-classic. Not much we can do here, those tests are useful. 2. We have a very large number of snapshots for 1.3.0. There are a few reasons for this: 1. Timing: We branched off early for the 1.2.0 release so the first snapshot for 1.3 was on June 3th. For 1.4 it looks like the first snapshot will be on July 15th so that’s roughly 2 extra snapshots just due to timing. 2. Additional snapshots: We had one broken snapshot due to a broken VSCode extension that we didn’t delete (probably not worth doing at this point). We also had to backport to an old snapshot which resulted in another extra snapshot. We also had one extra snapshot which was supposed to be the RC but wasn’t since the ANF revert needed to go in. The only thing that is clearly useless is the one broken snapshot but that doesn’t change things that much. I see 2 orthogonal options for improving this assuming we agree that the current runtime is worryingly high. 1. Prune snapshots more aggressively, e.g., only include the last 3 snapshots. That’s a pretty arbitrary decision but it would enforce a hard limit. 2. Reduce test combinations. E.g., only test snapshots vs stable releases but not snapshots vs snapshots. 3. We end up forcing a full build quite frequently. Here are just 2 examples of how we’ve done that so far. 1. Upgrade rules_haskell. Basically all tests are run by a Haskell binary so this forces a full rebuild. 2. Change runfiles of `daml`. I don’t think there is much we can do about 1 or 3 which leaves us with 2. One not entirely unreasonable option is to just do nothing. We did have periods where things went pretty smoothly for the most part and each month we reset to a much smaller number of releases (we also have to start throwing out old stable releases at some point). Otherwise reducing the number of test combinations seems the most promising option to me. changelog_begin changelog_end
2020-07-10 15:34:53 +03:00
timeoutInMinutes: 360
pool:
name: linux-pool
add default machine capability (#5912) add default machine capability We semi-regularly need to do work that has the potential to disrupt a machine's local cache, rendering it broken for other streams of work. This can include upgrading nix, upgrading Bazel, debugging caching issues, or anything related to Windows. Right now we do not have any good solution for these situations. We can either not do those streams of work, or we can proceed with them and just accept that all other builds may get affected depending on which machine they get assigned to. Debugging broken nodes is particularly tricky as we do not have any way to force a build to run on a given node. This PR aims at providing a better alternative by (ab)using an Azure Pipelines feature called [capabilities](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/agents/agents?view=azure-devops&tabs=browser#capabilities). The idea behind capabilities is that you assign a set of tags to a machine, and then a job can express its [demands](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/process/demands?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml), i.e. specify a set of tags machines need to have in order to run it. Support for this is fairly badly documented. We can gather from the documentation that a job can specify two things about a capability (through its `demands`): that a given tag exists, and that a given tag has an exact specified value. In particular, a job cannot specify that a capability should _not_ be present, meaning we cannot rely on, say, adding a "broken" tag to broken machines. Documentation on how to set capabilities for an agent is basically nonexistent, but [looking at the code](https://github.com/microsoft/azure-pipelines-agent/blob/master/src/Microsoft.VisualStudio.Services.Agent/Capabilities/UserCapabilitiesProvider.cs) indicates that they can be set by using a simple `key=value`-formatted text file, provided we can find the right place to put this file. This PR adds this file to our Linux, macOS and Windows node init scripts to define an `assignment` capability and adds a demand for a `default` value on each job. From then on, when we hit a case where we want a PR to run on a specific node, and to prevent other PRs from running on that node, we can manually override the capability from the Azure UI and update the demand in the relevant YAML file in the PR. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-09 19:21:42 +03:00
demands: assignment -equals default
steps:
- template: ci/report-start.yml
- checkout: self
- template: ci/compatibility.yml
parameters:
test_flags: '--quick'
- template: ci/tell-slack-failed.yml
- template: ci/report-end.yml
- job: compatibility_macos
dependsOn:
- da_ghc_lib
- check_for_release
- compatibility_ts_libs
Bump timeouts in compat tests (#6689) This bumps the timeout of the compat tests on PRs to 360 minutes matching other jobs on a PR (we mainly hit this if ghc-lib is rebuilt) and the timeout on the daily jobs to 720 minutes (we hit this if _everything_ is rebuilt). I am slightly worried about the timeout on the daily job. After having taken a look at it, there are a few reasons how we ended up here: 1. We started including more tests, e.g., sandbox-classic. Not much we can do here, those tests are useful. 2. We have a very large number of snapshots for 1.3.0. There are a few reasons for this: 1. Timing: We branched off early for the 1.2.0 release so the first snapshot for 1.3 was on June 3th. For 1.4 it looks like the first snapshot will be on July 15th so that’s roughly 2 extra snapshots just due to timing. 2. Additional snapshots: We had one broken snapshot due to a broken VSCode extension that we didn’t delete (probably not worth doing at this point). We also had to backport to an old snapshot which resulted in another extra snapshot. We also had one extra snapshot which was supposed to be the RC but wasn’t since the ANF revert needed to go in. The only thing that is clearly useless is the one broken snapshot but that doesn’t change things that much. I see 2 orthogonal options for improving this assuming we agree that the current runtime is worryingly high. 1. Prune snapshots more aggressively, e.g., only include the last 3 snapshots. That’s a pretty arbitrary decision but it would enforce a hard limit. 2. Reduce test combinations. E.g., only test snapshots vs stable releases but not snapshots vs snapshots. 3. We end up forcing a full build quite frequently. Here are just 2 examples of how we’ve done that so far. 1. Upgrade rules_haskell. Basically all tests are run by a Haskell binary so this forces a full rebuild. 2. Change runfiles of `daml`. I don’t think there is much we can do about 1 or 3 which leaves us with 2. One not entirely unreasonable option is to just do nothing. We did have periods where things went pretty smoothly for the most part and each month we reset to a much smaller number of releases (we also have to start throwing out old stable releases at some point). Otherwise reducing the number of test combinations seems the most promising option to me. changelog_begin changelog_end
2020-07-10 15:34:53 +03:00
timeoutInMinutes: 360
pool:
name: macOS-pool
steps:
- template: ci/report-start.yml
- template: ci/clear-shared-segments-macos.yml
- checkout: self
- template: ci/compatibility.yml
parameters:
test_flags: '--quick'
- template: ci/tell-slack-failed.yml
- template: ci/report-end.yml
- job: compatibility_windows
dependsOn:
- da_ghc_lib
- check_for_release
- compatibility_ts_libs
- patch_bazel_windows
Bump timeouts in compat tests (#6689) This bumps the timeout of the compat tests on PRs to 360 minutes matching other jobs on a PR (we mainly hit this if ghc-lib is rebuilt) and the timeout on the daily jobs to 720 minutes (we hit this if _everything_ is rebuilt). I am slightly worried about the timeout on the daily job. After having taken a look at it, there are a few reasons how we ended up here: 1. We started including more tests, e.g., sandbox-classic. Not much we can do here, those tests are useful. 2. We have a very large number of snapshots for 1.3.0. There are a few reasons for this: 1. Timing: We branched off early for the 1.2.0 release so the first snapshot for 1.3 was on June 3th. For 1.4 it looks like the first snapshot will be on July 15th so that’s roughly 2 extra snapshots just due to timing. 2. Additional snapshots: We had one broken snapshot due to a broken VSCode extension that we didn’t delete (probably not worth doing at this point). We also had to backport to an old snapshot which resulted in another extra snapshot. We also had one extra snapshot which was supposed to be the RC but wasn’t since the ANF revert needed to go in. The only thing that is clearly useless is the one broken snapshot but that doesn’t change things that much. I see 2 orthogonal options for improving this assuming we agree that the current runtime is worryingly high. 1. Prune snapshots more aggressively, e.g., only include the last 3 snapshots. That’s a pretty arbitrary decision but it would enforce a hard limit. 2. Reduce test combinations. E.g., only test snapshots vs stable releases but not snapshots vs snapshots. 3. We end up forcing a full build quite frequently. Here are just 2 examples of how we’ve done that so far. 1. Upgrade rules_haskell. Basically all tests are run by a Haskell binary so this forces a full rebuild. 2. Change runfiles of `daml`. I don’t think there is much we can do about 1 or 3 which leaves us with 2. One not entirely unreasonable option is to just do nothing. We did have periods where things went pretty smoothly for the most part and each month we reset to a much smaller number of releases (we also have to start throwing out old stable releases at some point). Otherwise reducing the number of test combinations seems the most promising option to me. changelog_begin changelog_end
2020-07-10 15:34:53 +03:00
timeoutInMinutes: 360
pool:
name: 'windows-pool'
add default machine capability (#5912) add default machine capability We semi-regularly need to do work that has the potential to disrupt a machine's local cache, rendering it broken for other streams of work. This can include upgrading nix, upgrading Bazel, debugging caching issues, or anything related to Windows. Right now we do not have any good solution for these situations. We can either not do those streams of work, or we can proceed with them and just accept that all other builds may get affected depending on which machine they get assigned to. Debugging broken nodes is particularly tricky as we do not have any way to force a build to run on a given node. This PR aims at providing a better alternative by (ab)using an Azure Pipelines feature called [capabilities](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/agents/agents?view=azure-devops&tabs=browser#capabilities). The idea behind capabilities is that you assign a set of tags to a machine, and then a job can express its [demands](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/process/demands?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml), i.e. specify a set of tags machines need to have in order to run it. Support for this is fairly badly documented. We can gather from the documentation that a job can specify two things about a capability (through its `demands`): that a given tag exists, and that a given tag has an exact specified value. In particular, a job cannot specify that a capability should _not_ be present, meaning we cannot rely on, say, adding a "broken" tag to broken machines. Documentation on how to set capabilities for an agent is basically nonexistent, but [looking at the code](https://github.com/microsoft/azure-pipelines-agent/blob/master/src/Microsoft.VisualStudio.Services.Agent/Capabilities/UserCapabilitiesProvider.cs) indicates that they can be set by using a simple `key=value`-formatted text file, provided we can find the right place to put this file. This PR adds this file to our Linux, macOS and Windows node init scripts to define an `assignment` capability and adds a demand for a `default` value on each job. From then on, when we hit a case where we want a PR to run on a specific node, and to prevent other PRs from running on that node, we can manually override the capability from the Azure UI and update the demand in the relevant YAML file in the PR. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-09 19:21:42 +03:00
demands: assignment -equals default
steps:
- template: ci/report-start.yml
- checkout: self
- template: ci/compatibility-windows.yml
parameters:
test_flags: '--quick'
- template: ci/tell-slack-failed.yml
- template: ci/report-end.yml
- task: PublishBuildArtifacts@1
condition: succeededOrFailed()
inputs:
pathtoPublish: '$(Build.StagingDirectory)'
artifactName: 'Bazel Compatibility Logs'
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
- job: check_for_release
dependsOn:
- git_sha
variables:
branch_sha: $[ dependencies.git_sha.outputs['out.branch'] ]
fork_sha: $[ dependencies.git_sha.outputs['out.fork_point'] ]
pool:
name: "linux-pool"
add default machine capability (#5912) add default machine capability We semi-regularly need to do work that has the potential to disrupt a machine's local cache, rendering it broken for other streams of work. This can include upgrading nix, upgrading Bazel, debugging caching issues, or anything related to Windows. Right now we do not have any good solution for these situations. We can either not do those streams of work, or we can proceed with them and just accept that all other builds may get affected depending on which machine they get assigned to. Debugging broken nodes is particularly tricky as we do not have any way to force a build to run on a given node. This PR aims at providing a better alternative by (ab)using an Azure Pipelines feature called [capabilities](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/agents/agents?view=azure-devops&tabs=browser#capabilities). The idea behind capabilities is that you assign a set of tags to a machine, and then a job can express its [demands](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/process/demands?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml), i.e. specify a set of tags machines need to have in order to run it. Support for this is fairly badly documented. We can gather from the documentation that a job can specify two things about a capability (through its `demands`): that a given tag exists, and that a given tag has an exact specified value. In particular, a job cannot specify that a capability should _not_ be present, meaning we cannot rely on, say, adding a "broken" tag to broken machines. Documentation on how to set capabilities for an agent is basically nonexistent, but [looking at the code](https://github.com/microsoft/azure-pipelines-agent/blob/master/src/Microsoft.VisualStudio.Services.Agent/Capabilities/UserCapabilitiesProvider.cs) indicates that they can be set by using a simple `key=value`-formatted text file, provided we can find the right place to put this file. This PR adds this file to our Linux, macOS and Windows node init scripts to define an `assignment` capability and adds a demand for a `default` value on each job. From then on, when we hit a case where we want a PR to run on a specific node, and to prevent other PRs from running on that node, we can manually override the capability from the Azure UI and update the demand in the relevant YAML file in the PR. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-09 19:21:42 +03:00
demands: assignment -equals default
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
steps:
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
./release.sh check
trigger all releases from master (#6016) trigger all releases from master The 1.1.0 release went wrong and we had to trash it and release 1.1.1 instead. This is an attempt at identifying and correcting the root cause behind that incident. To understand the situation, we need to know how releases worked before 1.0. We had a one-line file called `LATEST` that specifies the git SHA and version tag for the latest release. A change to that file triggered a release with the specified release tag, built from the source tree of the specified commit. The `LATEST` file looked something like: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0-snapshot.20200411.3905.0.f050da78 ``` To mark a release as stable, we would change it to look like this: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0 ``` i.e. simply drop the `-snapshot...` suffix. Even though the commit (and thus the entire source tree we build from) is the same, we would need to rebuild almost all of our release artifacts, as they embed the version tag in various places and ways. That worked well as long as we could assume we were doing trunk-based development, i.e. all releases would always come from the same (`master`) branch. When we released 1.0, and started work on 1.1, we had a few bug reports for 1.0 that we decided should be resolved in a point release. We decided that the best way to handle that would be to have a branch starting on the release commit for 1.0, and then backport patches from `master` to that branch. We adapted our build process to also watch the `release/1.0.x` branch and, in particular, trigger a new release build if the `LATEST` file in that branch changed. That worked well. The plan going forward was to keep doing regular snapshot releases from the `master` branch, and create support, point releases ("patch" releases in semver) from dedicated branches. On April 30, we made a snapshot release as an RC for 1.1.0, by changing the `LATEST` file in the `master` branch. That release was built on commit 681c862d. On May 6, we decided to take a new snapshot as the RC for 1.1.0; we changed `LATEST` in `master` to designate 7e448d81 as the new latest release. On May 11, we noticed an issue that broke our builds. Without going into details, an external artifact we depend on had changed in incompatible ways. After fixing that on `master`, we reasoned that this would also break the build of the final 1.1.0 release if we just tried to build 7e448d81 again. But as the target release date was May 13, we did not want to take a new snapshot after that fix, as that would have included one more week of work in the release, and given us no time to test it. So we did what we did for the 1.0 branch, as it had worked well: we created a branch that forked from `master` at commit 7e448d81 and called it `release/1.1.x`, then cherry-picked the one fix to our build process to work around the broken download. When the time came to make the final 1.1.0 build on May 13, we naturally picked the `LATEST` file from the `release/1.1.x` branch and dropped the `-snapshot...` suffix. Importantly, we did not need to update the target commit to include the "broken download" fix as, in the meantime, the internet had fixed itself, and we thus reasoned we should go for the exact code of the RC rather than include an unnecessary, albeit seemingly harmless, change. Everything went well with the release process. Tests went well too. Then we got a report that an application that worked against the latest RC broke with the final 1.1.0. The issue was that we had built the wrong commit: by branching off at the point of the _target_ commit for the latest snapshot, we did not have the change to the `LATEST` file that designated that commit as the target. So the `LATEST` file in `release/1.1.x` was still pointing to 681c862d. I believe the root cause for this issue is the fact that we have scattered our release process over multiple branches, meaning there is no linear history of what was released and we are relying on people being able to mentally manage multiple timelines. Therefore, I propose to fix our release process so this should not happen again by linearizing the release process, i.e. getting back to a situation where all releases are made from a single branch, `master`. Because we do want to be able to release _for_ multiple release branches (to provide backports and bugfixes), we still need some way to accommodate that. Having a single `LATEST` file in the same format as before would not really work well: keeping track of interleaved release streams on a single file would not really be easier than keeping track of multiple branches. My proposed solution is to instead have a multiline LATEST file, so that all the release branch "tips" can be observed at the same time, and, as long as we take care to only advance one release branch at a time, we can easily keep track of each of them. This is what this PR does. This required a few changes to our release process. Most notably: - Obviously, as this is the main point of this PR, the build process has once again been restricted to only trigger new releases from the `master` branch. - As our CI machinery cannot easily be made to produce multiple releases from a single build, the `check_for_release` step will only recognize a commit as a release trigger if it changes a single line in the `LATEST` file. This restriction comes in addition to the existing one that a release commit is only allowed to change either just the `LATEST` file or both the `LATEST` and `docs/source/support/release-notes.rst` files. - The docs publication process has been changed to update _all_ published versions to display the _latest_ release notes page. This means that the release notes page will always show you all published versions, regardless of which version of the documentation you're looking at. This also means that interleaving release notes correctly on that page is a manual exercise. - As per the intention of the new process, the `LATEST` file has been updated to contained all existing post-1.0 stable releases. It should also include all existing snapshot releases should we have more than one at a time (say, should we discover an issue with 1.1.1 that required us to work on a 1.1.2). - The `release.sh` script has been dramatically simplified as I felt it was trying to do too much and porting its existing functionality to a multi-line `LATEST` file would be too hard. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-19 20:18:10 +03:00
changes_release_files() {
changed="$(git diff-tree --no-commit-id --name-only -r $(fork_sha) $(branch_sha) | sort)"
stable=$(printf "LATEST\ndocs/source/support/release-notes.rst" | sort)
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
snapshot="LATEST"
[ "$snapshot" = "$changed" ] || [ "$stable" = "$changed" ]
}
trigger all releases from master (#6016) trigger all releases from master The 1.1.0 release went wrong and we had to trash it and release 1.1.1 instead. This is an attempt at identifying and correcting the root cause behind that incident. To understand the situation, we need to know how releases worked before 1.0. We had a one-line file called `LATEST` that specifies the git SHA and version tag for the latest release. A change to that file triggered a release with the specified release tag, built from the source tree of the specified commit. The `LATEST` file looked something like: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0-snapshot.20200411.3905.0.f050da78 ``` To mark a release as stable, we would change it to look like this: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0 ``` i.e. simply drop the `-snapshot...` suffix. Even though the commit (and thus the entire source tree we build from) is the same, we would need to rebuild almost all of our release artifacts, as they embed the version tag in various places and ways. That worked well as long as we could assume we were doing trunk-based development, i.e. all releases would always come from the same (`master`) branch. When we released 1.0, and started work on 1.1, we had a few bug reports for 1.0 that we decided should be resolved in a point release. We decided that the best way to handle that would be to have a branch starting on the release commit for 1.0, and then backport patches from `master` to that branch. We adapted our build process to also watch the `release/1.0.x` branch and, in particular, trigger a new release build if the `LATEST` file in that branch changed. That worked well. The plan going forward was to keep doing regular snapshot releases from the `master` branch, and create support, point releases ("patch" releases in semver) from dedicated branches. On April 30, we made a snapshot release as an RC for 1.1.0, by changing the `LATEST` file in the `master` branch. That release was built on commit 681c862d. On May 6, we decided to take a new snapshot as the RC for 1.1.0; we changed `LATEST` in `master` to designate 7e448d81 as the new latest release. On May 11, we noticed an issue that broke our builds. Without going into details, an external artifact we depend on had changed in incompatible ways. After fixing that on `master`, we reasoned that this would also break the build of the final 1.1.0 release if we just tried to build 7e448d81 again. But as the target release date was May 13, we did not want to take a new snapshot after that fix, as that would have included one more week of work in the release, and given us no time to test it. So we did what we did for the 1.0 branch, as it had worked well: we created a branch that forked from `master` at commit 7e448d81 and called it `release/1.1.x`, then cherry-picked the one fix to our build process to work around the broken download. When the time came to make the final 1.1.0 build on May 13, we naturally picked the `LATEST` file from the `release/1.1.x` branch and dropped the `-snapshot...` suffix. Importantly, we did not need to update the target commit to include the "broken download" fix as, in the meantime, the internet had fixed itself, and we thus reasoned we should go for the exact code of the RC rather than include an unnecessary, albeit seemingly harmless, change. Everything went well with the release process. Tests went well too. Then we got a report that an application that worked against the latest RC broke with the final 1.1.0. The issue was that we had built the wrong commit: by branching off at the point of the _target_ commit for the latest snapshot, we did not have the change to the `LATEST` file that designated that commit as the target. So the `LATEST` file in `release/1.1.x` was still pointing to 681c862d. I believe the root cause for this issue is the fact that we have scattered our release process over multiple branches, meaning there is no linear history of what was released and we are relying on people being able to mentally manage multiple timelines. Therefore, I propose to fix our release process so this should not happen again by linearizing the release process, i.e. getting back to a situation where all releases are made from a single branch, `master`. Because we do want to be able to release _for_ multiple release branches (to provide backports and bugfixes), we still need some way to accommodate that. Having a single `LATEST` file in the same format as before would not really work well: keeping track of interleaved release streams on a single file would not really be easier than keeping track of multiple branches. My proposed solution is to instead have a multiline LATEST file, so that all the release branch "tips" can be observed at the same time, and, as long as we take care to only advance one release branch at a time, we can easily keep track of each of them. This is what this PR does. This required a few changes to our release process. Most notably: - Obviously, as this is the main point of this PR, the build process has once again been restricted to only trigger new releases from the `master` branch. - As our CI machinery cannot easily be made to produce multiple releases from a single build, the `check_for_release` step will only recognize a commit as a release trigger if it changes a single line in the `LATEST` file. This restriction comes in addition to the existing one that a release commit is only allowed to change either just the `LATEST` file or both the `LATEST` and `docs/source/support/release-notes.rst` files. - The docs publication process has been changed to update _all_ published versions to display the _latest_ release notes page. This means that the release notes page will always show you all published versions, regardless of which version of the documentation you're looking at. This also means that interleaving release notes correctly on that page is a manual exercise. - As per the intention of the new process, the `LATEST` file has been updated to contained all existing post-1.0 stable releases. It should also include all existing snapshot releases should we have more than one at a time (say, should we discover an issue with 1.1.1 that required us to work on a 1.1.2). - The `release.sh` script has been dramatically simplified as I felt it was trying to do too much and porting its existing functionality to a multi-line `LATEST` file would be too hard. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-19 20:18:10 +03:00
changes_one_line_in_latest() {
changed="$(git diff-tree --no-commit-id --numstat -r $(fork_sha) $(branch_sha) -- LATEST | awk '{print $1 "_" $2}')"
trigger all releases from master (#6016) trigger all releases from master The 1.1.0 release went wrong and we had to trash it and release 1.1.1 instead. This is an attempt at identifying and correcting the root cause behind that incident. To understand the situation, we need to know how releases worked before 1.0. We had a one-line file called `LATEST` that specifies the git SHA and version tag for the latest release. A change to that file triggered a release with the specified release tag, built from the source tree of the specified commit. The `LATEST` file looked something like: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0-snapshot.20200411.3905.0.f050da78 ``` To mark a release as stable, we would change it to look like this: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0 ``` i.e. simply drop the `-snapshot...` suffix. Even though the commit (and thus the entire source tree we build from) is the same, we would need to rebuild almost all of our release artifacts, as they embed the version tag in various places and ways. That worked well as long as we could assume we were doing trunk-based development, i.e. all releases would always come from the same (`master`) branch. When we released 1.0, and started work on 1.1, we had a few bug reports for 1.0 that we decided should be resolved in a point release. We decided that the best way to handle that would be to have a branch starting on the release commit for 1.0, and then backport patches from `master` to that branch. We adapted our build process to also watch the `release/1.0.x` branch and, in particular, trigger a new release build if the `LATEST` file in that branch changed. That worked well. The plan going forward was to keep doing regular snapshot releases from the `master` branch, and create support, point releases ("patch" releases in semver) from dedicated branches. On April 30, we made a snapshot release as an RC for 1.1.0, by changing the `LATEST` file in the `master` branch. That release was built on commit 681c862d. On May 6, we decided to take a new snapshot as the RC for 1.1.0; we changed `LATEST` in `master` to designate 7e448d81 as the new latest release. On May 11, we noticed an issue that broke our builds. Without going into details, an external artifact we depend on had changed in incompatible ways. After fixing that on `master`, we reasoned that this would also break the build of the final 1.1.0 release if we just tried to build 7e448d81 again. But as the target release date was May 13, we did not want to take a new snapshot after that fix, as that would have included one more week of work in the release, and given us no time to test it. So we did what we did for the 1.0 branch, as it had worked well: we created a branch that forked from `master` at commit 7e448d81 and called it `release/1.1.x`, then cherry-picked the one fix to our build process to work around the broken download. When the time came to make the final 1.1.0 build on May 13, we naturally picked the `LATEST` file from the `release/1.1.x` branch and dropped the `-snapshot...` suffix. Importantly, we did not need to update the target commit to include the "broken download" fix as, in the meantime, the internet had fixed itself, and we thus reasoned we should go for the exact code of the RC rather than include an unnecessary, albeit seemingly harmless, change. Everything went well with the release process. Tests went well too. Then we got a report that an application that worked against the latest RC broke with the final 1.1.0. The issue was that we had built the wrong commit: by branching off at the point of the _target_ commit for the latest snapshot, we did not have the change to the `LATEST` file that designated that commit as the target. So the `LATEST` file in `release/1.1.x` was still pointing to 681c862d. I believe the root cause for this issue is the fact that we have scattered our release process over multiple branches, meaning there is no linear history of what was released and we are relying on people being able to mentally manage multiple timelines. Therefore, I propose to fix our release process so this should not happen again by linearizing the release process, i.e. getting back to a situation where all releases are made from a single branch, `master`. Because we do want to be able to release _for_ multiple release branches (to provide backports and bugfixes), we still need some way to accommodate that. Having a single `LATEST` file in the same format as before would not really work well: keeping track of interleaved release streams on a single file would not really be easier than keeping track of multiple branches. My proposed solution is to instead have a multiline LATEST file, so that all the release branch "tips" can be observed at the same time, and, as long as we take care to only advance one release branch at a time, we can easily keep track of each of them. This is what this PR does. This required a few changes to our release process. Most notably: - Obviously, as this is the main point of this PR, the build process has once again been restricted to only trigger new releases from the `master` branch. - As our CI machinery cannot easily be made to produce multiple releases from a single build, the `check_for_release` step will only recognize a commit as a release trigger if it changes a single line in the `LATEST` file. This restriction comes in addition to the existing one that a release commit is only allowed to change either just the `LATEST` file or both the `LATEST` and `docs/source/support/release-notes.rst` files. - The docs publication process has been changed to update _all_ published versions to display the _latest_ release notes page. This means that the release notes page will always show you all published versions, regardless of which version of the documentation you're looking at. This also means that interleaving release notes correctly on that page is a manual exercise. - As per the intention of the new process, the `LATEST` file has been updated to contained all existing post-1.0 stable releases. It should also include all existing snapshot releases should we have more than one at a time (say, should we discover an issue with 1.1.1 that required us to work on a 1.1.2). - The `release.sh` script has been dramatically simplified as I felt it was trying to do too much and porting its existing functionality to a multi-line `LATEST` file would be too hard. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-19 20:18:10 +03:00
add_one="1_0"
change_one="1_1"
[[ "$add_one" == "$changed" || "$change_one" == "$changed" ]]
}
setvar() {
echo "Setting '$1' to '$2'"
echo "##vso[task.setvariable variable=$1;isOutput=true]$2"
}
trigger all releases from master (#6016) trigger all releases from master The 1.1.0 release went wrong and we had to trash it and release 1.1.1 instead. This is an attempt at identifying and correcting the root cause behind that incident. To understand the situation, we need to know how releases worked before 1.0. We had a one-line file called `LATEST` that specifies the git SHA and version tag for the latest release. A change to that file triggered a release with the specified release tag, built from the source tree of the specified commit. The `LATEST` file looked something like: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0-snapshot.20200411.3905.0.f050da78 ``` To mark a release as stable, we would change it to look like this: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0 ``` i.e. simply drop the `-snapshot...` suffix. Even though the commit (and thus the entire source tree we build from) is the same, we would need to rebuild almost all of our release artifacts, as they embed the version tag in various places and ways. That worked well as long as we could assume we were doing trunk-based development, i.e. all releases would always come from the same (`master`) branch. When we released 1.0, and started work on 1.1, we had a few bug reports for 1.0 that we decided should be resolved in a point release. We decided that the best way to handle that would be to have a branch starting on the release commit for 1.0, and then backport patches from `master` to that branch. We adapted our build process to also watch the `release/1.0.x` branch and, in particular, trigger a new release build if the `LATEST` file in that branch changed. That worked well. The plan going forward was to keep doing regular snapshot releases from the `master` branch, and create support, point releases ("patch" releases in semver) from dedicated branches. On April 30, we made a snapshot release as an RC for 1.1.0, by changing the `LATEST` file in the `master` branch. That release was built on commit 681c862d. On May 6, we decided to take a new snapshot as the RC for 1.1.0; we changed `LATEST` in `master` to designate 7e448d81 as the new latest release. On May 11, we noticed an issue that broke our builds. Without going into details, an external artifact we depend on had changed in incompatible ways. After fixing that on `master`, we reasoned that this would also break the build of the final 1.1.0 release if we just tried to build 7e448d81 again. But as the target release date was May 13, we did not want to take a new snapshot after that fix, as that would have included one more week of work in the release, and given us no time to test it. So we did what we did for the 1.0 branch, as it had worked well: we created a branch that forked from `master` at commit 7e448d81 and called it `release/1.1.x`, then cherry-picked the one fix to our build process to work around the broken download. When the time came to make the final 1.1.0 build on May 13, we naturally picked the `LATEST` file from the `release/1.1.x` branch and dropped the `-snapshot...` suffix. Importantly, we did not need to update the target commit to include the "broken download" fix as, in the meantime, the internet had fixed itself, and we thus reasoned we should go for the exact code of the RC rather than include an unnecessary, albeit seemingly harmless, change. Everything went well with the release process. Tests went well too. Then we got a report that an application that worked against the latest RC broke with the final 1.1.0. The issue was that we had built the wrong commit: by branching off at the point of the _target_ commit for the latest snapshot, we did not have the change to the `LATEST` file that designated that commit as the target. So the `LATEST` file in `release/1.1.x` was still pointing to 681c862d. I believe the root cause for this issue is the fact that we have scattered our release process over multiple branches, meaning there is no linear history of what was released and we are relying on people being able to mentally manage multiple timelines. Therefore, I propose to fix our release process so this should not happen again by linearizing the release process, i.e. getting back to a situation where all releases are made from a single branch, `master`. Because we do want to be able to release _for_ multiple release branches (to provide backports and bugfixes), we still need some way to accommodate that. Having a single `LATEST` file in the same format as before would not really work well: keeping track of interleaved release streams on a single file would not really be easier than keeping track of multiple branches. My proposed solution is to instead have a multiline LATEST file, so that all the release branch "tips" can be observed at the same time, and, as long as we take care to only advance one release branch at a time, we can easily keep track of each of them. This is what this PR does. This required a few changes to our release process. Most notably: - Obviously, as this is the main point of this PR, the build process has once again been restricted to only trigger new releases from the `master` branch. - As our CI machinery cannot easily be made to produce multiple releases from a single build, the `check_for_release` step will only recognize a commit as a release trigger if it changes a single line in the `LATEST` file. This restriction comes in addition to the existing one that a release commit is only allowed to change either just the `LATEST` file or both the `LATEST` and `docs/source/support/release-notes.rst` files. - The docs publication process has been changed to update _all_ published versions to display the _latest_ release notes page. This means that the release notes page will always show you all published versions, regardless of which version of the documentation you're looking at. This also means that interleaving release notes correctly on that page is a manual exercise. - As per the intention of the new process, the `LATEST` file has been updated to contained all existing post-1.0 stable releases. It should also include all existing snapshot releases should we have more than one at a time (say, should we discover an issue with 1.1.1 that required us to work on a 1.1.2). - The `release.sh` script has been dramatically simplified as I felt it was trying to do too much and porting its existing functionality to a multi-line `LATEST` file would be too hard. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-19 20:18:10 +03:00
added_line() {
echo "$(git diff $(fork_sha) $(branch_sha) -- LATEST | tail -n+6 | grep '^\+' | cut -c2-)"
trigger all releases from master (#6016) trigger all releases from master The 1.1.0 release went wrong and we had to trash it and release 1.1.1 instead. This is an attempt at identifying and correcting the root cause behind that incident. To understand the situation, we need to know how releases worked before 1.0. We had a one-line file called `LATEST` that specifies the git SHA and version tag for the latest release. A change to that file triggered a release with the specified release tag, built from the source tree of the specified commit. The `LATEST` file looked something like: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0-snapshot.20200411.3905.0.f050da78 ``` To mark a release as stable, we would change it to look like this: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0 ``` i.e. simply drop the `-snapshot...` suffix. Even though the commit (and thus the entire source tree we build from) is the same, we would need to rebuild almost all of our release artifacts, as they embed the version tag in various places and ways. That worked well as long as we could assume we were doing trunk-based development, i.e. all releases would always come from the same (`master`) branch. When we released 1.0, and started work on 1.1, we had a few bug reports for 1.0 that we decided should be resolved in a point release. We decided that the best way to handle that would be to have a branch starting on the release commit for 1.0, and then backport patches from `master` to that branch. We adapted our build process to also watch the `release/1.0.x` branch and, in particular, trigger a new release build if the `LATEST` file in that branch changed. That worked well. The plan going forward was to keep doing regular snapshot releases from the `master` branch, and create support, point releases ("patch" releases in semver) from dedicated branches. On April 30, we made a snapshot release as an RC for 1.1.0, by changing the `LATEST` file in the `master` branch. That release was built on commit 681c862d. On May 6, we decided to take a new snapshot as the RC for 1.1.0; we changed `LATEST` in `master` to designate 7e448d81 as the new latest release. On May 11, we noticed an issue that broke our builds. Without going into details, an external artifact we depend on had changed in incompatible ways. After fixing that on `master`, we reasoned that this would also break the build of the final 1.1.0 release if we just tried to build 7e448d81 again. But as the target release date was May 13, we did not want to take a new snapshot after that fix, as that would have included one more week of work in the release, and given us no time to test it. So we did what we did for the 1.0 branch, as it had worked well: we created a branch that forked from `master` at commit 7e448d81 and called it `release/1.1.x`, then cherry-picked the one fix to our build process to work around the broken download. When the time came to make the final 1.1.0 build on May 13, we naturally picked the `LATEST` file from the `release/1.1.x` branch and dropped the `-snapshot...` suffix. Importantly, we did not need to update the target commit to include the "broken download" fix as, in the meantime, the internet had fixed itself, and we thus reasoned we should go for the exact code of the RC rather than include an unnecessary, albeit seemingly harmless, change. Everything went well with the release process. Tests went well too. Then we got a report that an application that worked against the latest RC broke with the final 1.1.0. The issue was that we had built the wrong commit: by branching off at the point of the _target_ commit for the latest snapshot, we did not have the change to the `LATEST` file that designated that commit as the target. So the `LATEST` file in `release/1.1.x` was still pointing to 681c862d. I believe the root cause for this issue is the fact that we have scattered our release process over multiple branches, meaning there is no linear history of what was released and we are relying on people being able to mentally manage multiple timelines. Therefore, I propose to fix our release process so this should not happen again by linearizing the release process, i.e. getting back to a situation where all releases are made from a single branch, `master`. Because we do want to be able to release _for_ multiple release branches (to provide backports and bugfixes), we still need some way to accommodate that. Having a single `LATEST` file in the same format as before would not really work well: keeping track of interleaved release streams on a single file would not really be easier than keeping track of multiple branches. My proposed solution is to instead have a multiline LATEST file, so that all the release branch "tips" can be observed at the same time, and, as long as we take care to only advance one release branch at a time, we can easily keep track of each of them. This is what this PR does. This required a few changes to our release process. Most notably: - Obviously, as this is the main point of this PR, the build process has once again been restricted to only trigger new releases from the `master` branch. - As our CI machinery cannot easily be made to produce multiple releases from a single build, the `check_for_release` step will only recognize a commit as a release trigger if it changes a single line in the `LATEST` file. This restriction comes in addition to the existing one that a release commit is only allowed to change either just the `LATEST` file or both the `LATEST` and `docs/source/support/release-notes.rst` files. - The docs publication process has been changed to update _all_ published versions to display the _latest_ release notes page. This means that the release notes page will always show you all published versions, regardless of which version of the documentation you're looking at. This also means that interleaving release notes correctly on that page is a manual exercise. - As per the intention of the new process, the `LATEST` file has been updated to contained all existing post-1.0 stable releases. It should also include all existing snapshot releases should we have more than one at a time (say, should we discover an issue with 1.1.1 that required us to work on a 1.1.2). - The `release.sh` script has been dramatically simplified as I felt it was trying to do too much and porting its existing functionality to a multi-line `LATEST` file would be too hard. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-19 20:18:10 +03:00
}
if changes_release_files; then
if changes_one_line_in_latest; then
setvar is_release true
setvar trigger_sha $(branch_sha)
setvar release_sha "$(added_line | awk '{print $1}')"
setvar release_tag "$(added_line | awk '{print $2}')"
else
echo "Release commit should only add one version."
exit 1
fi
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
else
trigger all releases from master (#6016) trigger all releases from master The 1.1.0 release went wrong and we had to trash it and release 1.1.1 instead. This is an attempt at identifying and correcting the root cause behind that incident. To understand the situation, we need to know how releases worked before 1.0. We had a one-line file called `LATEST` that specifies the git SHA and version tag for the latest release. A change to that file triggered a release with the specified release tag, built from the source tree of the specified commit. The `LATEST` file looked something like: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0-snapshot.20200411.3905.0.f050da78 ``` To mark a release as stable, we would change it to look like this: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0 ``` i.e. simply drop the `-snapshot...` suffix. Even though the commit (and thus the entire source tree we build from) is the same, we would need to rebuild almost all of our release artifacts, as they embed the version tag in various places and ways. That worked well as long as we could assume we were doing trunk-based development, i.e. all releases would always come from the same (`master`) branch. When we released 1.0, and started work on 1.1, we had a few bug reports for 1.0 that we decided should be resolved in a point release. We decided that the best way to handle that would be to have a branch starting on the release commit for 1.0, and then backport patches from `master` to that branch. We adapted our build process to also watch the `release/1.0.x` branch and, in particular, trigger a new release build if the `LATEST` file in that branch changed. That worked well. The plan going forward was to keep doing regular snapshot releases from the `master` branch, and create support, point releases ("patch" releases in semver) from dedicated branches. On April 30, we made a snapshot release as an RC for 1.1.0, by changing the `LATEST` file in the `master` branch. That release was built on commit 681c862d. On May 6, we decided to take a new snapshot as the RC for 1.1.0; we changed `LATEST` in `master` to designate 7e448d81 as the new latest release. On May 11, we noticed an issue that broke our builds. Without going into details, an external artifact we depend on had changed in incompatible ways. After fixing that on `master`, we reasoned that this would also break the build of the final 1.1.0 release if we just tried to build 7e448d81 again. But as the target release date was May 13, we did not want to take a new snapshot after that fix, as that would have included one more week of work in the release, and given us no time to test it. So we did what we did for the 1.0 branch, as it had worked well: we created a branch that forked from `master` at commit 7e448d81 and called it `release/1.1.x`, then cherry-picked the one fix to our build process to work around the broken download. When the time came to make the final 1.1.0 build on May 13, we naturally picked the `LATEST` file from the `release/1.1.x` branch and dropped the `-snapshot...` suffix. Importantly, we did not need to update the target commit to include the "broken download" fix as, in the meantime, the internet had fixed itself, and we thus reasoned we should go for the exact code of the RC rather than include an unnecessary, albeit seemingly harmless, change. Everything went well with the release process. Tests went well too. Then we got a report that an application that worked against the latest RC broke with the final 1.1.0. The issue was that we had built the wrong commit: by branching off at the point of the _target_ commit for the latest snapshot, we did not have the change to the `LATEST` file that designated that commit as the target. So the `LATEST` file in `release/1.1.x` was still pointing to 681c862d. I believe the root cause for this issue is the fact that we have scattered our release process over multiple branches, meaning there is no linear history of what was released and we are relying on people being able to mentally manage multiple timelines. Therefore, I propose to fix our release process so this should not happen again by linearizing the release process, i.e. getting back to a situation where all releases are made from a single branch, `master`. Because we do want to be able to release _for_ multiple release branches (to provide backports and bugfixes), we still need some way to accommodate that. Having a single `LATEST` file in the same format as before would not really work well: keeping track of interleaved release streams on a single file would not really be easier than keeping track of multiple branches. My proposed solution is to instead have a multiline LATEST file, so that all the release branch "tips" can be observed at the same time, and, as long as we take care to only advance one release branch at a time, we can easily keep track of each of them. This is what this PR does. This required a few changes to our release process. Most notably: - Obviously, as this is the main point of this PR, the build process has once again been restricted to only trigger new releases from the `master` branch. - As our CI machinery cannot easily be made to produce multiple releases from a single build, the `check_for_release` step will only recognize a commit as a release trigger if it changes a single line in the `LATEST` file. This restriction comes in addition to the existing one that a release commit is only allowed to change either just the `LATEST` file or both the `LATEST` and `docs/source/support/release-notes.rst` files. - The docs publication process has been changed to update _all_ published versions to display the _latest_ release notes page. This means that the release notes page will always show you all published versions, regardless of which version of the documentation you're looking at. This also means that interleaving release notes correctly on that page is a manual exercise. - As per the intention of the new process, the `LATEST` file has been updated to contained all existing post-1.0 stable releases. It should also include all existing snapshot releases should we have more than one at a time (say, should we discover an issue with 1.1.1 that required us to work on a 1.1.2). - The `release.sh` script has been dramatically simplified as I felt it was trying to do too much and porting its existing functionality to a multi-line `LATEST` file would be too hard. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-19 20:18:10 +03:00
setvar is_release false
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
fi
name: out
- job: check_perf_test
pool:
name: linux-pool
add default machine capability (#5912) add default machine capability We semi-regularly need to do work that has the potential to disrupt a machine's local cache, rendering it broken for other streams of work. This can include upgrading nix, upgrading Bazel, debugging caching issues, or anything related to Windows. Right now we do not have any good solution for these situations. We can either not do those streams of work, or we can proceed with them and just accept that all other builds may get affected depending on which machine they get assigned to. Debugging broken nodes is particularly tricky as we do not have any way to force a build to run on a given node. This PR aims at providing a better alternative by (ab)using an Azure Pipelines feature called [capabilities](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/agents/agents?view=azure-devops&tabs=browser#capabilities). The idea behind capabilities is that you assign a set of tags to a machine, and then a job can express its [demands](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/process/demands?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml), i.e. specify a set of tags machines need to have in order to run it. Support for this is fairly badly documented. We can gather from the documentation that a job can specify two things about a capability (through its `demands`): that a given tag exists, and that a given tag has an exact specified value. In particular, a job cannot specify that a capability should _not_ be present, meaning we cannot rely on, say, adding a "broken" tag to broken machines. Documentation on how to set capabilities for an agent is basically nonexistent, but [looking at the code](https://github.com/microsoft/azure-pipelines-agent/blob/master/src/Microsoft.VisualStudio.Services.Agent/Capabilities/UserCapabilitiesProvider.cs) indicates that they can be set by using a simple `key=value`-formatted text file, provided we can find the right place to put this file. This PR adds this file to our Linux, macOS and Windows node init scripts to define an `assignment` capability and adds a demand for a `default` value on each job. From then on, when we hit a case where we want a PR to run on a specific node, and to prevent other PRs from running on that node, we can manually override the capability from the Azure UI and update the demand in the relevant YAML file in the PR. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-09 19:21:42 +03:00
demands: assignment -equals default
condition: eq(variables['Build.Reason'], 'IndividualCI')
steps:
- bash: |
TEST_SHA=$(cat ci/cron/perf/test_sha)
LAST_CHANGES=$(git log -n1 --format=%H daml-lf/scenario-interpreter/src/perf)
CURRENT_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
if [ "$TEST_SHA" != "$LAST_CHANGES" ]; then
if [ "$LAST_CHANGES" = "$CURRENT_SHA" ]; then
curl -XPOST \
-i \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--data "{\"text\":\"<!here> Perf tests seem to have changed. Please manually check:\n\`\`\`\ngit diff $TEST_SHA $LAST_CHANGES -- daml-lf/scenario-interpreter/src/perf\n\`\`\`\nand update accordingly. If the change is benign, update \`ci/cron/perf/test_sha\` to \`$LAST_CHANGES\`. With no intervention, you will no longer get performance reports.\"}" \
$(Slack.team-daml)
else
echo "Changes detected, but not from this commit."
fi
else
echo "No change detected."
fi
displayName: check perf changes
- job: release
dependsOn: [ "check_for_release", "Linux", "macOS", "Windows" ]
condition: and(succeeded(),
eq(dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.is_release'], 'true'),
trigger all releases from master (#6016) trigger all releases from master The 1.1.0 release went wrong and we had to trash it and release 1.1.1 instead. This is an attempt at identifying and correcting the root cause behind that incident. To understand the situation, we need to know how releases worked before 1.0. We had a one-line file called `LATEST` that specifies the git SHA and version tag for the latest release. A change to that file triggered a release with the specified release tag, built from the source tree of the specified commit. The `LATEST` file looked something like: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0-snapshot.20200411.3905.0.f050da78 ``` To mark a release as stable, we would change it to look like this: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0 ``` i.e. simply drop the `-snapshot...` suffix. Even though the commit (and thus the entire source tree we build from) is the same, we would need to rebuild almost all of our release artifacts, as they embed the version tag in various places and ways. That worked well as long as we could assume we were doing trunk-based development, i.e. all releases would always come from the same (`master`) branch. When we released 1.0, and started work on 1.1, we had a few bug reports for 1.0 that we decided should be resolved in a point release. We decided that the best way to handle that would be to have a branch starting on the release commit for 1.0, and then backport patches from `master` to that branch. We adapted our build process to also watch the `release/1.0.x` branch and, in particular, trigger a new release build if the `LATEST` file in that branch changed. That worked well. The plan going forward was to keep doing regular snapshot releases from the `master` branch, and create support, point releases ("patch" releases in semver) from dedicated branches. On April 30, we made a snapshot release as an RC for 1.1.0, by changing the `LATEST` file in the `master` branch. That release was built on commit 681c862d. On May 6, we decided to take a new snapshot as the RC for 1.1.0; we changed `LATEST` in `master` to designate 7e448d81 as the new latest release. On May 11, we noticed an issue that broke our builds. Without going into details, an external artifact we depend on had changed in incompatible ways. After fixing that on `master`, we reasoned that this would also break the build of the final 1.1.0 release if we just tried to build 7e448d81 again. But as the target release date was May 13, we did not want to take a new snapshot after that fix, as that would have included one more week of work in the release, and given us no time to test it. So we did what we did for the 1.0 branch, as it had worked well: we created a branch that forked from `master` at commit 7e448d81 and called it `release/1.1.x`, then cherry-picked the one fix to our build process to work around the broken download. When the time came to make the final 1.1.0 build on May 13, we naturally picked the `LATEST` file from the `release/1.1.x` branch and dropped the `-snapshot...` suffix. Importantly, we did not need to update the target commit to include the "broken download" fix as, in the meantime, the internet had fixed itself, and we thus reasoned we should go for the exact code of the RC rather than include an unnecessary, albeit seemingly harmless, change. Everything went well with the release process. Tests went well too. Then we got a report that an application that worked against the latest RC broke with the final 1.1.0. The issue was that we had built the wrong commit: by branching off at the point of the _target_ commit for the latest snapshot, we did not have the change to the `LATEST` file that designated that commit as the target. So the `LATEST` file in `release/1.1.x` was still pointing to 681c862d. I believe the root cause for this issue is the fact that we have scattered our release process over multiple branches, meaning there is no linear history of what was released and we are relying on people being able to mentally manage multiple timelines. Therefore, I propose to fix our release process so this should not happen again by linearizing the release process, i.e. getting back to a situation where all releases are made from a single branch, `master`. Because we do want to be able to release _for_ multiple release branches (to provide backports and bugfixes), we still need some way to accommodate that. Having a single `LATEST` file in the same format as before would not really work well: keeping track of interleaved release streams on a single file would not really be easier than keeping track of multiple branches. My proposed solution is to instead have a multiline LATEST file, so that all the release branch "tips" can be observed at the same time, and, as long as we take care to only advance one release branch at a time, we can easily keep track of each of them. This is what this PR does. This required a few changes to our release process. Most notably: - Obviously, as this is the main point of this PR, the build process has once again been restricted to only trigger new releases from the `master` branch. - As our CI machinery cannot easily be made to produce multiple releases from a single build, the `check_for_release` step will only recognize a commit as a release trigger if it changes a single line in the `LATEST` file. This restriction comes in addition to the existing one that a release commit is only allowed to change either just the `LATEST` file or both the `LATEST` and `docs/source/support/release-notes.rst` files. - The docs publication process has been changed to update _all_ published versions to display the _latest_ release notes page. This means that the release notes page will always show you all published versions, regardless of which version of the documentation you're looking at. This also means that interleaving release notes correctly on that page is a manual exercise. - As per the intention of the new process, the `LATEST` file has been updated to contained all existing post-1.0 stable releases. It should also include all existing snapshot releases should we have more than one at a time (say, should we discover an issue with 1.1.1 that required us to work on a 1.1.2). - The `release.sh` script has been dramatically simplified as I felt it was trying to do too much and porting its existing functionality to a multi-line `LATEST` file would be too hard. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-19 20:18:10 +03:00
eq(variables['Build.SourceBranchName'], 'master'))
pool:
vmImage: "Ubuntu-16.04"
variables:
linux-tarball: $[ dependencies.Linux.outputs['publish.tarball'] ]
macos-tarball: $[ dependencies.macOS.outputs['publish.tarball'] ]
windows-tarball: $[ dependencies.Windows.outputs['publish.tarball'] ]
windows-installer: $[ dependencies.Windows.outputs['publish.installer'] ]
protos-zip: $[ dependencies.Linux.outputs['publish.protos-zip'] ]
daml-on-sql: $[ dependencies.Linux.outputs['publish.daml-on-sql'] ]
json-api: $[ dependencies.Linux.outputs['publish.json-api'] ]
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
release_sha: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_sha'] ]
release_tag: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_tag'] ]
trigger_sha: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.trigger_sha'] ]
steps:
- template: ci/report-start.yml
- checkout: self
persistCredentials: true
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
if git tag v$(release_tag) $(release_sha); then
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
git push origin v$(release_tag)
mkdir $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release
else
echo "##vso[task.setvariable variable=skip-github]TRUE"
fi
- task: DownloadPipelineArtifact@0
inputs:
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
artifactName: $(linux-tarball)
targetPath: $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
- task: DownloadPipelineArtifact@0
inputs:
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
artifactName: $(macos-tarball)
targetPath: $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
- task: DownloadPipelineArtifact@0
inputs:
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
artifactName: $(windows-tarball)
targetPath: $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
- task: DownloadPipelineArtifact@0
inputs:
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
artifactName: $(windows-installer)
targetPath: $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
- task: DownloadPipelineArtifact@0
inputs:
artifactName: $(protos-zip)
targetPath: $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
- task: DownloadPipelineArtifact@0
inputs:
artifactName: $(daml-on-sql)
targetPath: $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
- task: DownloadPipelineArtifact@0
inputs:
artifactName: $(json-api)
targetPath: $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
2019-09-24 14:02:29 +03:00
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
KEY_FILE=$(mktemp)
GPG_DIR=$(mktemp -d)
cleanup() {
rm -rf $KEY_FILE $GPG_DIR
}
trap cleanup EXIT
2019-09-25 02:24:02 +03:00
echo "$GPG_KEY" | base64 -d > $KEY_FILE
2019-09-24 14:02:29 +03:00
gpg --homedir $GPG_DIR --no-tty --quiet --import $KEY_FILE
cd $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release
sha256sum $(find . -type f | sort) > sha256sums
2019-09-24 14:02:29 +03:00
# Note: relies on our release artifacts not having spaces in their
# names. Creates a ${f}.asc with the signature for each $f.
for f in *; do
gpg --homedir $GPG_DIR -ab $f
done
env:
GPG_KEY: $(gpg-code-signing)
- task: GitHubRelease@0
inputs:
gitHubConnection: 'garyverhaegen-da'
repositoryName: '$(Build.Repository.Name)'
action: 'create'
target: '$(release_sha)'
tagSource: 'manual'
tag: 'v$(release_tag)'
assets: $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release/*
assetUploadMode: 'replace'
title: '$(release_tag)'
addChangeLog: false
isPrerelease: true
releaseNotesSource: 'input'
trigger all releases from master (#6016) trigger all releases from master The 1.1.0 release went wrong and we had to trash it and release 1.1.1 instead. This is an attempt at identifying and correcting the root cause behind that incident. To understand the situation, we need to know how releases worked before 1.0. We had a one-line file called `LATEST` that specifies the git SHA and version tag for the latest release. A change to that file triggered a release with the specified release tag, built from the source tree of the specified commit. The `LATEST` file looked something like: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0-snapshot.20200411.3905.0.f050da78 ``` To mark a release as stable, we would change it to look like this: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0 ``` i.e. simply drop the `-snapshot...` suffix. Even though the commit (and thus the entire source tree we build from) is the same, we would need to rebuild almost all of our release artifacts, as they embed the version tag in various places and ways. That worked well as long as we could assume we were doing trunk-based development, i.e. all releases would always come from the same (`master`) branch. When we released 1.0, and started work on 1.1, we had a few bug reports for 1.0 that we decided should be resolved in a point release. We decided that the best way to handle that would be to have a branch starting on the release commit for 1.0, and then backport patches from `master` to that branch. We adapted our build process to also watch the `release/1.0.x` branch and, in particular, trigger a new release build if the `LATEST` file in that branch changed. That worked well. The plan going forward was to keep doing regular snapshot releases from the `master` branch, and create support, point releases ("patch" releases in semver) from dedicated branches. On April 30, we made a snapshot release as an RC for 1.1.0, by changing the `LATEST` file in the `master` branch. That release was built on commit 681c862d. On May 6, we decided to take a new snapshot as the RC for 1.1.0; we changed `LATEST` in `master` to designate 7e448d81 as the new latest release. On May 11, we noticed an issue that broke our builds. Without going into details, an external artifact we depend on had changed in incompatible ways. After fixing that on `master`, we reasoned that this would also break the build of the final 1.1.0 release if we just tried to build 7e448d81 again. But as the target release date was May 13, we did not want to take a new snapshot after that fix, as that would have included one more week of work in the release, and given us no time to test it. So we did what we did for the 1.0 branch, as it had worked well: we created a branch that forked from `master` at commit 7e448d81 and called it `release/1.1.x`, then cherry-picked the one fix to our build process to work around the broken download. When the time came to make the final 1.1.0 build on May 13, we naturally picked the `LATEST` file from the `release/1.1.x` branch and dropped the `-snapshot...` suffix. Importantly, we did not need to update the target commit to include the "broken download" fix as, in the meantime, the internet had fixed itself, and we thus reasoned we should go for the exact code of the RC rather than include an unnecessary, albeit seemingly harmless, change. Everything went well with the release process. Tests went well too. Then we got a report that an application that worked against the latest RC broke with the final 1.1.0. The issue was that we had built the wrong commit: by branching off at the point of the _target_ commit for the latest snapshot, we did not have the change to the `LATEST` file that designated that commit as the target. So the `LATEST` file in `release/1.1.x` was still pointing to 681c862d. I believe the root cause for this issue is the fact that we have scattered our release process over multiple branches, meaning there is no linear history of what was released and we are relying on people being able to mentally manage multiple timelines. Therefore, I propose to fix our release process so this should not happen again by linearizing the release process, i.e. getting back to a situation where all releases are made from a single branch, `master`. Because we do want to be able to release _for_ multiple release branches (to provide backports and bugfixes), we still need some way to accommodate that. Having a single `LATEST` file in the same format as before would not really work well: keeping track of interleaved release streams on a single file would not really be easier than keeping track of multiple branches. My proposed solution is to instead have a multiline LATEST file, so that all the release branch "tips" can be observed at the same time, and, as long as we take care to only advance one release branch at a time, we can easily keep track of each of them. This is what this PR does. This required a few changes to our release process. Most notably: - Obviously, as this is the main point of this PR, the build process has once again been restricted to only trigger new releases from the `master` branch. - As our CI machinery cannot easily be made to produce multiple releases from a single build, the `check_for_release` step will only recognize a commit as a release trigger if it changes a single line in the `LATEST` file. This restriction comes in addition to the existing one that a release commit is only allowed to change either just the `LATEST` file or both the `LATEST` and `docs/source/support/release-notes.rst` files. - The docs publication process has been changed to update _all_ published versions to display the _latest_ release notes page. This means that the release notes page will always show you all published versions, regardless of which version of the documentation you're looking at. This also means that interleaving release notes correctly on that page is a manual exercise. - As per the intention of the new process, the `LATEST` file has been updated to contained all existing post-1.0 stable releases. It should also include all existing snapshot releases should we have more than one at a time (say, should we discover an issue with 1.1.1 that required us to work on a 1.1.2). - The `release.sh` script has been dramatically simplified as I felt it was trying to do too much and porting its existing functionality to a multi-line `LATEST` file would be too hard. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-19 20:18:10 +03:00
releaseNotes: "This is a pre-release. Use at your own risk."
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
GCS_KEY=$(mktemp)
cleanup () {
rm -f $GCS_KEY
}
trap cleanup EXIT
echo "$GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS_CONTENT" > $GCS_KEY
gcloud auth activate-service-account --key-file=$GCS_KEY
export BOTO_CONFIG=/dev/null
gsutil cp $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release/$(daml-on-sql) \
gs://daml-binaries/daml-on-sql/$(daml-on-sql)
gsutil cp $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release/$(daml-on-sql).asc \
gs://daml-binaries/daml-on-sql/$(daml-on-sql).asc
gsutil cp $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release/$(json-api) \
gs://daml-binaries/json-api/$(json-api)
gsutil cp $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release/$(json-api).asc \
gs://daml-binaries/json-api/$(json-api).asc
env:
GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS_CONTENT: $(GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS_CONTENT)
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
pr_handler=$(head -1 release/rotation | awk '{print $1}')
curl -XPOST \
-i \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--data "{\"text\":\"<@${pr_handler}> Release \`$(release_tag)\` is ready for testing. (<https://dev.azure.com/digitalasset/daml/_build/results?buildId=$(Build.BuildId)|build>, <https://github.com/digital-asset/daml/commit/$(trigger_sha)|trigger commit>, <https://github.com/digital-asset/daml/commit/$(release_sha)|target commit>)\"}" \
$(Slack.team-daml)
2019-07-04 17:22:22 +03:00
- template: ci/tell-slack-failed.yml
parameters:
trigger_sha: '$(trigger_sha)'
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
- template: ci/report-end.yml
- job: compat_versions_pr
dependsOn:
- release
- check_for_release
pool:
name: linux-pool
demands: assignment -equals default
variables:
release_tag: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_tag'] ]
steps:
- checkout: self
persistCredentials: true
- bash: ci/dev-env-install.sh
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
eval "$(./dev-env/bin/dade-assist)"
setvar() {
echo "Setting '$1' to '$2'"
echo "##vso[task.setvariable variable=$1;isOutput=true]$2"
}
DELAY=1
while ! curl --fail -I https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/com/daml/ledger-api-test-tool/$(release_tag)/ledger-api-test-tool-$(release_tag).jar; do
sleep $DELAY
DELAY=$(( DELAY * 2 ))
if (( $DELAY > 2000 )); then
echo "Too many attempts waiting for Maven."
exit 1
fi
done
# With `persistCredentials: true`, Azure Pipelines will store the
# credentials to interact with GitHub in the url for the origin remote,
# using basic auth format:
# https://username:password@github.com/:user/:repo.git
# This series of pipes extracts the `username:password` part.
#
# It looks like in some cases the credentials get stored separately as
# a header instead.
if header=$(git config 'http.https://github.com/digital-asset/daml.extraheader'); then
AUTH="$header"
else
AUTH="Authorization: basic $(git config remote.origin.url | grep -o '://.*:.*@' | cut -c4- | rev | cut -c2- | rev)"
fi
git checkout origin/master
BRANCH=update-compat-versions-for-$(release_tag)
# if this is a rerun, branch might already exist
git branch -D $BRANCH || true
git checkout -b $BRANCH
cp .bazelrc compatibility/
compatibility/update-versions.sh
# Note that maven_install.json might be unchanged but
# git add is happy about that.
git add compatibility/versions.bzl compatibility/maven_install.json
git -c user.name="Azure Pipelines DAML Build" \
-c user.email="support@digitalasset.com" \
commit \
-m "$(printf "update compat versions for $(release_tag)\n\nCHANGELOG_BEGIN\nCHANGELOG_END\n")"
git push origin $BRANCH:$BRANCH
curl -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "$AUTH" \
--silent \
--include \
--location \
-d "{\"title\": \"update compat versions for $(release_tag)\", \"head\": \"$BRANCH\", \"base\": \"master\"}" \
https://api.github.com/repos/digital-asset/daml/pulls
setvar "branch" "$BRANCH"
name: out
- template: ci/tell-slack-failed.yml
parameters:
trigger_sha: '$(trigger_sha)'
- job: compat_versions_pr_trigger_daily
dependsOn: compat_versions_pr
pool:
vmImage: "ubuntu-latest"
variables:
branch: $[ dependencies.compat_versions_pr.outputs['out.branch'] ]
steps:
- checkout: none
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
az extension add --name azure-devops
echo "$(System.AccessToken)" | az devops login --org "https://dev.azure.com/digitalasset"
az pipelines build queue --branch $(branch) --definition-name "digital-asset.daml-daily-compat" --org "https://dev.azure.com/digitalasset" --project daml
az pipelines build queue --branch $(branch) --definition-name "digital-asset.daml" --org "https://dev.azure.com/digitalasset" --project daml
2019-11-08 00:55:25 +03:00
- job: write_ledger_dump
dependsOn:
- check_for_release
- da_ghc_lib
2019-11-08 00:55:25 +03:00
pool:
vmImage: "Ubuntu-16.04"
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
condition: and(eq(dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.is_release'], 'true'),
trigger all releases from master (#6016) trigger all releases from master The 1.1.0 release went wrong and we had to trash it and release 1.1.1 instead. This is an attempt at identifying and correcting the root cause behind that incident. To understand the situation, we need to know how releases worked before 1.0. We had a one-line file called `LATEST` that specifies the git SHA and version tag for the latest release. A change to that file triggered a release with the specified release tag, built from the source tree of the specified commit. The `LATEST` file looked something like: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0-snapshot.20200411.3905.0.f050da78 ``` To mark a release as stable, we would change it to look like this: ``` f050da78c9c8727b889bdac286156f19e2f938c4 1.0.0 ``` i.e. simply drop the `-snapshot...` suffix. Even though the commit (and thus the entire source tree we build from) is the same, we would need to rebuild almost all of our release artifacts, as they embed the version tag in various places and ways. That worked well as long as we could assume we were doing trunk-based development, i.e. all releases would always come from the same (`master`) branch. When we released 1.0, and started work on 1.1, we had a few bug reports for 1.0 that we decided should be resolved in a point release. We decided that the best way to handle that would be to have a branch starting on the release commit for 1.0, and then backport patches from `master` to that branch. We adapted our build process to also watch the `release/1.0.x` branch and, in particular, trigger a new release build if the `LATEST` file in that branch changed. That worked well. The plan going forward was to keep doing regular snapshot releases from the `master` branch, and create support, point releases ("patch" releases in semver) from dedicated branches. On April 30, we made a snapshot release as an RC for 1.1.0, by changing the `LATEST` file in the `master` branch. That release was built on commit 681c862d. On May 6, we decided to take a new snapshot as the RC for 1.1.0; we changed `LATEST` in `master` to designate 7e448d81 as the new latest release. On May 11, we noticed an issue that broke our builds. Without going into details, an external artifact we depend on had changed in incompatible ways. After fixing that on `master`, we reasoned that this would also break the build of the final 1.1.0 release if we just tried to build 7e448d81 again. But as the target release date was May 13, we did not want to take a new snapshot after that fix, as that would have included one more week of work in the release, and given us no time to test it. So we did what we did for the 1.0 branch, as it had worked well: we created a branch that forked from `master` at commit 7e448d81 and called it `release/1.1.x`, then cherry-picked the one fix to our build process to work around the broken download. When the time came to make the final 1.1.0 build on May 13, we naturally picked the `LATEST` file from the `release/1.1.x` branch and dropped the `-snapshot...` suffix. Importantly, we did not need to update the target commit to include the "broken download" fix as, in the meantime, the internet had fixed itself, and we thus reasoned we should go for the exact code of the RC rather than include an unnecessary, albeit seemingly harmless, change. Everything went well with the release process. Tests went well too. Then we got a report that an application that worked against the latest RC broke with the final 1.1.0. The issue was that we had built the wrong commit: by branching off at the point of the _target_ commit for the latest snapshot, we did not have the change to the `LATEST` file that designated that commit as the target. So the `LATEST` file in `release/1.1.x` was still pointing to 681c862d. I believe the root cause for this issue is the fact that we have scattered our release process over multiple branches, meaning there is no linear history of what was released and we are relying on people being able to mentally manage multiple timelines. Therefore, I propose to fix our release process so this should not happen again by linearizing the release process, i.e. getting back to a situation where all releases are made from a single branch, `master`. Because we do want to be able to release _for_ multiple release branches (to provide backports and bugfixes), we still need some way to accommodate that. Having a single `LATEST` file in the same format as before would not really work well: keeping track of interleaved release streams on a single file would not really be easier than keeping track of multiple branches. My proposed solution is to instead have a multiline LATEST file, so that all the release branch "tips" can be observed at the same time, and, as long as we take care to only advance one release branch at a time, we can easily keep track of each of them. This is what this PR does. This required a few changes to our release process. Most notably: - Obviously, as this is the main point of this PR, the build process has once again been restricted to only trigger new releases from the `master` branch. - As our CI machinery cannot easily be made to produce multiple releases from a single build, the `check_for_release` step will only recognize a commit as a release trigger if it changes a single line in the `LATEST` file. This restriction comes in addition to the existing one that a release commit is only allowed to change either just the `LATEST` file or both the `LATEST` and `docs/source/support/release-notes.rst` files. - The docs publication process has been changed to update _all_ published versions to display the _latest_ release notes page. This means that the release notes page will always show you all published versions, regardless of which version of the documentation you're looking at. This also means that interleaving release notes correctly on that page is a manual exercise. - As per the intention of the new process, the `LATEST` file has been updated to contained all existing post-1.0 stable releases. It should also include all existing snapshot releases should we have more than one at a time (say, should we discover an issue with 1.1.1 that required us to work on a 1.1.2). - The `release.sh` script has been dramatically simplified as I felt it was trying to do too much and porting its existing functionality to a multi-line `LATEST` file would be too hard. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-19 20:18:10 +03:00
eq(variables['Build.SourceBranchName'], 'master'))
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
variables:
release_sha: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_sha'] ]
release_tag: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_tag'] ]
trigger_sha: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.trigger_sha'] ]
2019-11-08 00:55:25 +03:00
steps:
- checkout: self
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
git checkout $(release_sha)
export DAML_SDK_RELEASE_VERSION=$(release_tag)
2019-11-08 00:55:25 +03:00
sudo mkdir -p /nix
sudo chown $USER /nix
curl -sSfL https://nixos.org/releases/nix/nix-2.3.3/install | bash
2019-11-08 00:55:25 +03:00
eval "$(dev-env/bin/dade-assist)"
GCS_KEY=$(mktemp)
cleanup () {
rm -f $GCS_KEY
}
trap cleanup EXIT
echo "$GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS_CONTENT" > $GCS_KEY
gcloud auth activate-service-account --key-file=$GCS_KEY
export BOTO_CONFIG=/dev/null
bazel build //ledger/participant-state/kvutils:reference-ledger-dump
gsutil cp bazel-bin/ledger/participant-state/kvutils/reference-ledger-dump.out \
introduce new release process (#4513) Context ======= After multiple discussions about our current release schedule and process, we've come to the conclusion that we need to be able to make a distinction between technical snapshots and marketing releases. In other words, we need to be able to create a bundle for early adopters to test without making it an officially-supported version, and without necessarily implying everyone should go through the trouble of upgrading. The underlying goal is to have less frequent but more stable "official" releases. This PR is a proposal for a new release process designed under the following constraints: - Reuse as much as possible of the existing infrastructure, to minimize effort but also chances of disruptions. - Have the ability to create "snapshot"/"nightly"/... releases that are not meant for general public consumption, but can still be used by savvy users without jumping through too many extra hoops (ideally just swapping in a slightly-weirder version string). - Have the ability to promote an existing snapshot release to "official" release status, with as few changes as possible in-between, so we can be confident that the official release is what we tested as a prerelease. - Have as much of the release pipeline shared between the two types of releases, to avoid discovering non-transient problems while trying to promote a snapshot to an official release. - Triggerring a release should still be done through a PR, so we can keep the same approval process for SOC2 auditability. The gist of this proposal is to replace the current `VERSION` file with a `LATEST` file, which would have the following format: ``` ef5d32b7438e481de0235c5538aedab419682388 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` This file would be maintained with a script to reduce manual labor in producing the version string. Other than that, the process will be largely the same, with releases triggered by changes to this `LATEST` and the release notes files. Version numbers =============== Because one of the goals is to reduce the velocity of our published version numbers, we need a different version scheme for our snapshot releases. Fortunately, most version schemes have some support for that; unfortunately, the SDK sits at the intersection of three different version schemes that have made incompatible choices. Without going into too much detail: - Semantic versioning (which we chose as the version format for the SDK version number) allows for "prerelease" version numbers as well as "metadata"; an example of a complete version string would be `1.2.3-nightly.201+server12.43`. The "main" part of the version string always has to have 3 numbers separated by dots; the "prerelease" (after the `-` but before the `+`) and the "metadata" (after the `+`) parts are optional and, if present, must consist of one or more segments separated by dots, where a segment can be either a number or an alphanumeric string. In terms of ordering, metadata is irrelevant and any version with a prerelease string is before the corresponding "main" version string alone. Amongst prereleases, segments are compared in order with purely numeric ones compared as numbers and mixed ones compared lexicographically. So 1.2.3 is more recent than 1.2.3-1, which is itself less recent than 1.2.3-2. - Maven version strings are any number of segments separated by a `.`, a `-`, or a transition between a number and a letter. Version strings are compared element-wise, with numeric segments being compared as numbers. Alphabetic segments are treated specially if they happen to be one of a handful of magic words (such as "alpha", "beta" or "snapshot" for example) which count as "qualifiers"; a version string with a qualifier is "before" its prefix (`1.2.3` is before `1.2.3-alpha.3`, which is the same as `1.2.3-alpha3` or `1.2.3-alpha-3`), and there is a special ordering amongst qualifiers. Other alphabetic segments are compared alphabetically and count as being "after" their prefix (`1.2.3-really-final-this-time` counts as being released after `1.2.3`). - GHC package numbers are comprised of any number of numeric segments separated by `.`, plus an optional (though deprecated) alphanumeric "version tag" separated by a `-`. I could not find any official documentation on ordering for the version tag; numeric segments are compared as numbers. - npm uses semantic versioning so that is covered already. After much more investigation than I'd care to admit, I have come up with the following compromise as the least-bad solution. First, obviously, the version string for stable/marketing versions is going to be "standard" semver, i.e. major.minor.patch, all numbers, which works, and sorts as expected, for all three schemes. For snapshot releases, we shall use the following (semver) format: ``` 0.13.53-alpha.20200214.3025.ef5d32b7 ``` where the components are, respectively: - `0.13.53`: the expected version string of the next "stable" release. - `alpha`: a marker that hopefully scares people enough. - `20200214`: the date of the release commit, which _MUST_ be on master. - `3025`: the number of commits in master up to the release commit (included). Because we have a linear, append-only master branch, this uniquely identifies the commit. - `ef5d32b7ù : the first 8 characters of the release commit sha. This is not strictly speaking necessary, but makes it a lot more convenient to identify the commit. The main downsides of this format are: 1. It is not a valid format for GHC packages. We do not publish GHC packages from the SDK (so far we have instead opted to release our Haskell code as separate packages entirely), so this should not be an issue. However, our SDK version currently leaks to `ghc-pkg` as the version string for the stdlib (and prim) packages. This PR addresses that by tweaking the compiler to remove the offending bits, so `ghc-pkg` would see the above version number as `0.13.53.20200214.3025`, which should be enough to uniquely identify it. Note that, as far as I could find out, this number would never be exposed to users. 2. It is rather long, which I think is good from a human perspective as it makes it more scary. However, I have been told that this may be long enough to cause issues on Windows by pushing us past the max path size limitation of that "OS". I suggest we try it and see what happens. The upsides are: - It clearly indicates it is an unstable release (`alpha`). - It clearly indicates how old it is, by including the date. - To humans, it is immediately obvious which version is "later" even if they have the same date, allowing us to release same-day patches if needed. (Note: that is, commits that were made on the same day; the release date itself is irrelevant here.) - It contains the git sha so the commit built for that release is immediately obvious. - It sorts correctly under all schemes (modulo the modification for GHC). Alternatives I considered: - Pander to GHC: 0.13.53-alpha-20200214-3025-ef5d32b7. This format would be accepted by all schemes, but will not sort as expected under semantic versioning (though Maven will be fine). I have no idea how it will sort under GHC. - Not having any non-numeric component, e.g. `0.13.53.20200214.3025`. This is not valid semantic versioning and is therefore rejected by npm. - Not having detailed info: just go with `0.13.53-snapshot`. This is what is generally done in the Java world, but we then lose track of what version is actually in use and I'm concerned about bug reports. This would also not let us publish to the main Maven repo (at least not more than once), as artifacts there are supposed to be immutable. - No having a qualifier: `0.13.53-3025` would be acceptable to all three version formats. However, it would not clearly indicate to humans that it is not meant as a stable version, and would sort differently under semantic versioning (which counts it as a prerelease, i.e. before `0.13.53`) than under maven (which counts it as a patch, so after `0.13.53`). - Just counting releases: `0.13.53-alpha.1`, where we just count the number of prereleases in-between `0.13.52` and the next. This is currently the fallback plan if Windows path length causes issues. It would be less convenient to map releases to commits, but it could still be done via querying the history of the `LATEST` file. Release notes ============= > Note: We have decided not to have release notes for snapshot releases. Release notes are a bit tricky. Because we want the ability to make snapshot releases, then later on promote them to stable releases, it follows that we want to build commits from the past. However, if we decide post-hoc that a commit is actually a good candidate for a release, there is no way that commit can have the appropriate release notes: it cannot know what version number it's getting, and, moreover, we now track changes in commit messages. And I do not think anyone wants to go back to the release notes file being a merge bottleneck. But release notes need to be published to the releases blog upon releasing a stable version, and the docs website needs to be updated and include them. The only sensible solution here is to pick up the release notes as of the commit that triggers the release. As the docs cron runs asynchronously, this means walking down the git history to find the relevant commit. > Note: We could probably do away with the asynchronicity at this point. > It was originally included to cover for the possibility of a release > failing. If we are releasing commits from the past after they have been > tested, this should not be an issue anymore. If the docs generation were > part of the synchronous release step, it would have direct access to the > correct release notes without having to walk down the git history. > > However, I think it is more prudent to keep this change as a future step, > after we're confident the new release scheme does indeed produce much more > reliable "stable" releases. New release process =================== Just like releases are currently controlled mostly by detecting changes to the `VERSION` file, the new process will be controlled by detecting changes to the `LATEST` file. The format of that file will include both the version string and the corresponding SHA. Upon detecting a change to the `LATEST` file, CI will run the entire release process, just like it does now with the VERSION file. The main differences are: 1. Before running the release step, CI will checkout the commit specified in the LATEST file. This requires separating the release step from the build step, which in my opinion is cleaner anyway. 2. The `//:VERSION` Bazel target is replaced by a repository rule that gets the version to build from an environment variable, with a default of `0.0.0` to remain consistent with the current `daml-head` behaviour. Some of the manual steps will need to be skipped for a snapshot release. See amended `release/RELEASE.md` in this commit for details. The main caveat of this approach is that the official release will be a different binary from the corresponding snapshot. It will have been built from the same source, but with a different version string. This is somewhat mitigated by Bazel caching, meaning any build step that does not depend on the version string should use the cache and produce identical results. I do not think this can be avoided when our artifact includes its own version number. I must note, though, that while going through the changes required after removing the `VERSION` file, I have been quite surprised at the sheer number of things that actually depend on the SDK version number. I believe we should look into reducing that over time. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-02-25 19:01:23 +03:00
gs://daml-dumps/release/ledger/api-server-damlonx/reference-v2/reference-ledger-dump-$(release_tag)
2019-11-08 00:55:25 +03:00
env:
GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS_CONTENT: $(GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS_CONTENT)
- template: ci/tell-slack-failed.yml
parameters:
trigger_sha: '$(trigger_sha)'
2019-11-08 00:55:25 +03:00
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
- job: collect_build_data
condition: always()
dependsOn:
- Linux
- macOS
- Windows
- release
- write_ledger_dump
- git_sha
- compatibility_macos
- compatibility_linux
- compatibility_windows
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
pool:
name: "linux-pool"
add default machine capability (#5912) add default machine capability We semi-regularly need to do work that has the potential to disrupt a machine's local cache, rendering it broken for other streams of work. This can include upgrading nix, upgrading Bazel, debugging caching issues, or anything related to Windows. Right now we do not have any good solution for these situations. We can either not do those streams of work, or we can proceed with them and just accept that all other builds may get affected depending on which machine they get assigned to. Debugging broken nodes is particularly tricky as we do not have any way to force a build to run on a given node. This PR aims at providing a better alternative by (ab)using an Azure Pipelines feature called [capabilities](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/agents/agents?view=azure-devops&tabs=browser#capabilities). The idea behind capabilities is that you assign a set of tags to a machine, and then a job can express its [demands](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/process/demands?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml), i.e. specify a set of tags machines need to have in order to run it. Support for this is fairly badly documented. We can gather from the documentation that a job can specify two things about a capability (through its `demands`): that a given tag exists, and that a given tag has an exact specified value. In particular, a job cannot specify that a capability should _not_ be present, meaning we cannot rely on, say, adding a "broken" tag to broken machines. Documentation on how to set capabilities for an agent is basically nonexistent, but [looking at the code](https://github.com/microsoft/azure-pipelines-agent/blob/master/src/Microsoft.VisualStudio.Services.Agent/Capabilities/UserCapabilitiesProvider.cs) indicates that they can be set by using a simple `key=value`-formatted text file, provided we can find the right place to put this file. This PR adds this file to our Linux, macOS and Windows node init scripts to define an `assignment` capability and adds a demand for a `default` value on each job. From then on, when we hit a case where we want a PR to run on a specific node, and to prevent other PRs from running on that node, we can manually override the capability from the Azure UI and update the demand in the relevant YAML file in the PR. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-09 19:21:42 +03:00
demands: assignment -equals default
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
variables:
Linux.start: $[ dependencies.Linux.outputs['start.time'] ]
Linux.machine: $[ dependencies.Linux.outputs['start.machine'] ]
Linux.end: $[ dependencies.Linux.outputs['end.time'] ]
Linux.status: $[ dependencies.Linux.result ]
macOS.start: $[ dependencies.macOS.outputs['start.time'] ]
macOS.machine: $[ dependencies.macOS.outputs['start.machine'] ]
macOS.end: $[ dependencies.macOS.outputs['end.time'] ]
macOS.status: $[ dependencies.macOS.result ]
Windows.start: $[ dependencies.Windows.outputs['start.time'] ]
Windows.machine: $[ dependencies.Windows.outputs['start.machine'] ]
Windows.end: $[ dependencies.Windows.outputs['end.time'] ]
Windows.status: $[ dependencies.Windows.result ]
release.start: $[ dependencies.release.outputs['start.time'] ]
release.machine: $[ dependencies.release.outputs['start.machine'] ]
release.end: $[ dependencies.release.outputs['end.time'] ]
release.status: $[ dependencies.release.result ]
dump.start: $[ dependencies.write_ledger_dump.outputs['start.time'] ]
dump.machine: $[ dependencies.write_ledger_dump.outputs['start.machine'] ]
dump.end: $[ dependencies.write_ledger_dump.outputs['end.time'] ]
dump.status: $[ dependencies.write_ledger_dump.result ]
compatibility_linux.start: $[ dependencies.compatibility_linux.outputs['start.time'] ]
compatibility_linux.machine: $[ dependencies.compatibility_linux.outputs['start.machine'] ]
compatibility_linux.end: $[ dependencies.compatibility_linux.outputs['end.time'] ]
compatibility_linux.status: $[ dependencies.compatibility_linux.result ]
compatibility_macos.start: $[ dependencies.compatibility_macos.outputs['start.time'] ]
compatibility_macos.machine: $[ dependencies.compatibility_macos.outputs['start.machine'] ]
compatibility_macos.end: $[ dependencies.compatibility_macos.outputs['end.time'] ]
compatibility_macos.status: $[ dependencies.compatibility_macos.result ]
compatibility_windows.start: $[ dependencies.compatibility_windows.outputs['start.time'] ]
compatibility_windows.machine: $[ dependencies.compatibility_windows.outputs['start.machine'] ]
compatibility_windows.end: $[ dependencies.compatibility_windows.outputs['end.time'] ]
compatibility_windows.status: $[ dependencies.compatibility_windows.result ]
branch_sha: $[ dependencies.git_sha.outputs['out.branch'] ]
master_sha: $[ dependencies.git_sha.outputs['out.master'] ]
fork_sha: $[ dependencies.git_sha.outputs['out.fork_point'] ]
# Using expression syntax so we get an empty string if not set, rather
# than the raw $(VarName) string. Expression syntax works on the
# variables key, but not on the env one, so we need an extra indirection.
# Note: These Azure variables are only set for PR builds.
pr.num: $[ variables['System.PullRequest.PullRequestNumber'] ]
pr.branch: $[ variables['System.PullRequest.SourceBranch'] ]
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
steps:
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
eval "$(./dev-env/bin/dade-assist)"
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
REPORT=$(mktemp)
cat >$REPORT <<END
{"jobs": {"Linux": {"start": "$(Linux.start)",
"machine": "$(Linux.machine)",
"end": "$(Linux.end)",
"status": "$(Linux.status)"},
"macOS": {"start": "$(macOS.start)",
"machine": "$(macOS.machine)",
"end": "$(macOS.end)",
"status": "$(macOS.status)"},
"Windows": {"start": "$(Windows.start)",
"machine": "$(Windows.machine)",
"end": "$(Windows.end)",
"status": "$(Windows.status)"},
"write_ledger_dump": {"start": "$(dump.start)",
"machine": "$(dump.machine)",
"end": "$(dump.end)",
"status": "$(dump.status)"},
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
"release": {"start": "$(release.start)",
"machine": "$(release.machine)",
"end": "$(release.end)",
"status": "$(release.status)"},
"compatibility_linux": {"start": "$(compatibility_linux.start)",
"machine": "$(compatibility_linux.machine)",
"end": "$(compatibility_linux.end)",
"status": "$(compatibility_linux.status)"},
"compatibility_macos": {"start": "$(compatibility_macos.start)",
"machine": "$(compatibility_macos.machine)",
"end": "$(compatibility_macos.end)",
"status": "$(compatibility_macos.status)"},
"compatibility_windows": {"start": "$(compatibility_windows.start)",
"machine": "$(compatibility_windows.machine)",
"end": "$(compatibility_windows.end)",
"status": "$(compatibility_windows.status)"}},
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
"id": "$(Build.BuildId)",
"url": "https://dev.azure.com/digitalasset/daml/_build/results?buildId=$(Build.BuildId)",
"name": "$(Build.DefinitionName)",
"version": "$(Build.DefinitionVersion)",
"queued_by": "$(Build.QueuedBy)",
"reason": "$(Build.Reason)",
"branch": "$(Build.SourceBranch)",
"merge_commit": "$(Build.SourceVersion)",
"branch_commit": "$(branch_sha)",
"master_commit": "$(master_sha)",
"fork_point_commit": "$(fork_sha)",
"commit_message": $(echo -n "$COMMIT_MSG" | jq -sR),
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
"is_fork": "$(System.PullRequest.IsFork)",
"pr": "$PR_NUM",
"pr_url": "https://github.com/digital-asset/daml/pull/$PR_NUM",
"pr_source_branch": "$PR_BRANCH"}
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
END
# Test above JSON is well formed
cat $REPORT | jq '.'
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
REPORT_GZ=$(mktemp)
cat $REPORT | gzip -9 > $REPORT_GZ
GCS_KEY=$(mktemp)
2019-09-24 14:02:29 +03:00
cleanup() {
rm -rf $GCS_KEY
}
trap cleanup EXIT
2019-07-18 19:13:29 +03:00
# Application credentials will not be set for forks. We give up on
2019-07-19 14:33:15 +03:00
# tracking those for now. "Not set" in Azure world means set to the
# expression Azure would otherwise substitute, i.e. the literal value
# of the string in the `env:` block below.
if [[ "${GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS_CONTENT:1:${#GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS_CONTENT}-1}" != '(GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS_CONTENT)' ]]; then
2019-07-18 19:13:29 +03:00
echo "$GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS_CONTENT" > $GCS_KEY
gcloud auth activate-service-account --key-file=$GCS_KEY
BOTO_CONFIG=/dev/null gsutil cp $REPORT_GZ gs://daml-data/builds/$(Build.BuildId)_$(date -u +%Y%m%d_%H%M%SZ).json.gz
else
echo "Could not save build data: no credentials. Data was:"
2019-07-18 19:13:29 +03:00
cat $REPORT
fi
2019-07-10 22:52:50 +03:00
# Linux, macOS and Windows are always required and should always
# succeed.
#
# release and write_ledger_dump only run on releases and are skipped
# otherwise.
if [[ "$(Linux.status)" != "Succeeded"
|| "$(macOS.status)" != "Succeeded"
|| "$(Windows.status)" != "Succeeded"
|| "$(compatibility_linux.status)" != "Succeeded"
|| "$(compatibility_macos.status)" != "Succeeded"
|| "$(compatibility_windows.status)" != "Succeeded"
|| "$(dump.status)" == "Canceled"
|| "$(release.status)" == "Canceled" ]]; then
2019-07-10 22:52:50 +03:00
exit 1
fi
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
env:
GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS_CONTENT: $(GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS_CONTENT)
# Commit message is always set
COMMIT_MSG: $(Build.SourceVersionMessage)
# Because these variables are always set (in the variables block),
# hopefully these should be set as expected (i.e. either correct
# value or empty string, but not $(Azure.Variable.Name)).
PR_NUM: $(pr.num)
PR_BRANCH: $(pr.branch)
- job: notify_user
condition: and(eq(variables['Build.Reason'], 'PullRequest'), not(canceled()))
dependsOn:
- git_sha
- collect_build_data
- check_for_release
pool:
name: 'linux-pool'
add default machine capability (#5912) add default machine capability We semi-regularly need to do work that has the potential to disrupt a machine's local cache, rendering it broken for other streams of work. This can include upgrading nix, upgrading Bazel, debugging caching issues, or anything related to Windows. Right now we do not have any good solution for these situations. We can either not do those streams of work, or we can proceed with them and just accept that all other builds may get affected depending on which machine they get assigned to. Debugging broken nodes is particularly tricky as we do not have any way to force a build to run on a given node. This PR aims at providing a better alternative by (ab)using an Azure Pipelines feature called [capabilities](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/agents/agents?view=azure-devops&tabs=browser#capabilities). The idea behind capabilities is that you assign a set of tags to a machine, and then a job can express its [demands](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/process/demands?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml), i.e. specify a set of tags machines need to have in order to run it. Support for this is fairly badly documented. We can gather from the documentation that a job can specify two things about a capability (through its `demands`): that a given tag exists, and that a given tag has an exact specified value. In particular, a job cannot specify that a capability should _not_ be present, meaning we cannot rely on, say, adding a "broken" tag to broken machines. Documentation on how to set capabilities for an agent is basically nonexistent, but [looking at the code](https://github.com/microsoft/azure-pipelines-agent/blob/master/src/Microsoft.VisualStudio.Services.Agent/Capabilities/UserCapabilitiesProvider.cs) indicates that they can be set by using a simple `key=value`-formatted text file, provided we can find the right place to put this file. This PR adds this file to our Linux, macOS and Windows node init scripts to define an `assignment` capability and adds a demand for a `default` value on each job. From then on, when we hit a case where we want a PR to run on a specific node, and to prevent other PRs from running on that node, we can manually override the capability from the Azure UI and update the demand in the relevant YAML file in the PR. CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END
2020-05-09 19:21:42 +03:00
demands: assignment -equals default
variables:
pr.num: $[ variables['System.PullRequest.PullRequestNumber'] ]
branch_sha: $[ dependencies.git_sha.outputs['out.branch'] ]
status: $[ dependencies.collect_build_data.result ]
is_release: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.is_release'] ]
steps:
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
tell_slack() {
local MESSAGE=$1
local USER_ID=$2
curl -XPOST \
-i \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--data "{\"text\":\"<@${USER_ID}> <https://dev.azure.com/digitalasset/daml/_build/results?buildId=$(Build.BuildId)|Build $(Build.BuildId)> for <https://github.com/digital-asset/daml/pull/$(pr.num)|PR $(pr.num)> has completed with status ${MESSAGE}.\"}" \
$(Slack.team-daml-ci)
}
tell_daml() {
local message pr_handler
message=$1
pr_handler=$(head -1 release/rotation | awk '{print $1}')
curl -XPOST \
-i \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--data "{\"text\":\"<@${pr_handler}> <https://dev.azure.com/digitalasset/daml/_build/results?buildId=$(Build.BuildId)|Build $(Build.BuildId)> for release PR <https://github.com/digital-asset/daml/pull/$(pr.num)|#$(pr.num)> has completed with status ${message}.\"}" \
$(Slack.team-daml)
}
if [ "$(is_release)" == "true" ]; then
# releases matter to everyone
tell_daml "$(status)"
exit 0
fi
EMAIL=$(git log -n 1 --format=%ae $(branch_sha))
user_registered() {
cat ci/slack_user_ids | grep $EMAIL
}
user_id() {
echo $(cat ci/slack_user_ids | grep $EMAIL | awk '{print $2}')
}
if user_registered; then
tell_slack "$(status)" "$(user_id)"
else
echo "User $(user_id) did not opt in for notifications."
fi