daml/compiler/daml-extension/BUILD.bazel

119 lines
4.3 KiB
Python
Raw Normal View History

# Copyright (c) 2022 Digital Asset (Switzerland) GmbH and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
# SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
package(default_visibility = ["//visibility:public"])
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
load("@build_environment//:configuration.bzl", "npm_version")
2019-07-16 21:12:48 +03:00
filegroup(
name = "json-files",
srcs = glob([
"*.json",
"syntaxes/*.json",
]),
)
sh_test(
name = "valid-json",
srcs = ["ci-tests.sh"],
args = [
"$(location @jq_dev_env//:jq)",
"$(locations :json-files)",
],
data = [
":json-files",
"@jq_dev_env//:jq",
],
# This is required to get the test to run on Windows. Otherwise, it looks
# like Bazel decides that because it cannot create symlinks on Windows, it
# may as well just give up and start the test without any of its
# dependencies available at all. But not warn about it, so the script can
# just fail at build time when it doesn't find anything.
deps = ["@bazel_tools//tools/bash/runfiles"],
)
2019-07-13 00:35:05 +03:00
# For some reason,
# 1. Bazel only exposes the node_modules dependency as a list of files, not as
# a folder, and
# 2. Copying these files over is surprisingly slow on my machine.
#
# Because `vsce` needs to run in a folder where all of the node_modules
# dependencies are already populated, this separate step takes all of the
# node_module files, one by one (because that is how Bazel exposes them),
# copies them to their intended place, and then bundles the whole node_modules
# folder as a tarball so the next task, below, can depend on that cached
# tarball and be fast.
# Also for some reason on Windows I get "cannot ceate node_modules: file
# exists", so at this point I'm completely out of trust.
genrule(
name = "node_deps_cache",
srcs = ["@daml_extension_deps//:node_modules"],
outs = ["node_modules.tar.gz"],
cmd = """
if [[ -d node_modules ]]; then
rm -rf node_modules
fi
mkdir node_modules
cd node_modules
for f in $(locations @daml_extension_deps//:node_modules); do
# Because Bazel paths are weird, we need to remove everything
# before node_modules. We also need to extract the path separately
# from the filename because we need to create the path (mkdir -p)
# before we can write the file
file=$$(basename $$f)
dir=$$(dirname $$f | sed 's:^.*/node_modules/::')
mkdir -p $$dir
cp ../$$f $$dir/$$file
done
cd ..
# Avoid file path too long errors on Windows of the form
# .../tar_dev_env/usr/bin/tar: node_modules/.cache/terser-webpack-plugin/...: file name is too long (cannot be split); not dumped
$(execpath //bazel_tools/sh:mktgz) $@ --exclude="node_modules/.cache/*" node_modules
2019-07-13 00:35:05 +03:00
""",
tools = ["//bazel_tools/sh:mktgz"],
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
)
# This rule is not reproducible. `vsce package` generates a `.vsix` file which
# is just a zip archive. The order of entries in that archive is
# non-deterministic and the individual entries contain non-reproducible
# timestamps.
2019-07-13 00:35:05 +03:00
genrule(
name = "vsix",
srcs = glob([
"package.json",
"syntaxes/*",
"snippets/*",
"images/*",
"*.json",
"README.md",
2019-07-13 00:35:05 +03:00
"yarn.lock",
"src/*",
]) + [
2019-07-13 00:35:05 +03:00
":node_deps_cache",
],
2019-07-13 00:35:05 +03:00
outs = ["daml-bundled.vsix"],
Bazel 1.1 (#3249) * bazel: 0.28.1 --> 1.1.0 * bazel-watcher sha256 * Fix missing line in patch * proto_source_root --> strip_import_prefix See https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/7153 for details. * Update rules_nixpkgs Required to avoid errors of the form ``` ERROR: An error occurred during the fetch of repository 'node_nix': parameter 'sep' may not be specified by name, for call to method split(sep, maxsplit = None) of 'string' ``` and ``` ERROR: An error occurred during the fetch of repository 'node_nix': Traceback (most recent call last): File "/private/var/tmp/_bazel_runner/17d2b3954f1c6dcf5414d5453467df9a/external/io_tweag_rules_nixpkgs/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.bzl", line 149 _execute_or_fail(repository_ctx, <3 more arguments>) File "/private/var/tmp/_bazel_runner/17d2b3954f1c6dcf5414d5453467df9a/external/io_tweag_rules_nixpkgs/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.bzl", line 318, in _execute_or_fail fail(<1 more arguments>) Cannot build Nix attribute 'nodejs'. Command: [/Users/runner/.nix-profile/bin/nix-build, /private/var/tmp/_bazel_runner/17d2b3954f1c6dcf5414d5453467df9a/external/node_nix/nix/bazel.nix, "-A", "nodejs", "--out-link", "bazel-support/nix-out-link", "-I", "nixpkgs=/private/var/tmp/_bazel_runner/17d2b3954f1c6dcf5414d5453467df9a/external/nixpkgs/nixpkgs"] Return code: 1 Error output: src/main/tools/process-tools.cc:173: "setitimer": Invalid argument ``` * Update rules_scala * .proto has been removed, use [ProtoInfo] instead See https://docs.bazel.build/versions/1.1.0/be/protocol-buffer.html#proto_library * python3_nix add nix_file attribute To avoid the following error ``` ERROR: /home/aj/tweag.io/da/da-bazel-1.1/BUILD:66:1: //:nix_python3_runtime depends on @python3_nix//:bin/python in repository @python3_nix which failed to fetch. no such package '@python3_nix//': Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/aj/.cache/bazel/_bazel_aj/5f825ad28f8e070f999ba37395e46ee5/external/io_tweag_rules_nixpkgs/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.bzl", line 149 _execute_or_fail(repository_ctx, <3 more arguments>) File "/home/aj/.cache/bazel/_bazel_aj/5f825ad28f8e070f999ba37395e46ee5/external/io_tweag_rules_nixpkgs/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.bzl", line 318, in _execute_or_fail fail(<1 more arguments>) Cannot build Nix attribute 'python3'. Command: [/home/aj/.nix-profile/bin/nix-build, "-E", "import <nixpkgs> { config = {}; overlays = []; }", "-A", "python3", "--out-link", "bazel-support/nix-out-link", "-I", "nixpkgs=/home/aj/.cache/bazel/_bazel_aj/5f825ad28f8e070f999ba37395e46ee5/external/nixpkgs/nixpkgs"] Return code: 1 Error output: error: anonymous function at /home/aj/.cache/bazel/_bazel_aj/5f825ad28f8e070f999ba37395e46ee5/external/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.nix:3:1 called with unexpected argument 'config', at (string):1:1 ``` * rules_haskell unnamed string.split(_, maxsplit = _) The keyword argument may no longer be named. * string.replace(_, _, maxsplit = _) may not be named * Move proto sources from deps to data Fixes ``` ERROR: /home/aj/tweag.io/da/da-bazel-1.1/daml-lf/archive/BUILD.bazel:150:1: in deps attribute of scala_test rule //daml-lf/archive:daml_lf_archive_reader_tests_test_suite_src_test_scala_com_digitalasset_daml_lf_archive_DecodeV1Spec.scala: '//daml-lf/archive:daml_lf_1.6_archive_proto_srcs' does not have mandatory providers: 'JavaInfo'. Since this rule was created by the macro 'da_scala_test_suite', the error might have been caused by the macro implementation ``` * Define sha256 for haskell_ghc__paths Bazel 1.1.0 fails on missing hashes. * Disable --incompatible_windows_native_test_wrapper * //compiler/daml-extension don't modify sources Modifying sources in-place can cause issues on Windows, where build actions are not sandboxed and changes on sources can affect other build steps. * bazel-genfiles --> bazel-bin The bazel-genfiles symlink has been removed since Bazel 1.0. See https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/8651 * Mark dev_env_tool repository rule as configure See https://docs.bazel.build/versions/1.1.0/skylark/lib/globals.html#repository_rule * Move data deps into data attribute * Mark dev_env_tool as local = True * Manually fetch @makensis_dev_env
2019-11-11 12:06:03 +03:00
# rm -rf can fail with "directory not empty" on Windows.
# As a workaround we add `|| return`.
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
cmd = """
export HOME=/does-not-exist
2019-07-31 18:10:30 +03:00
set -euo pipefail
Bazel 1.1 (#3249) * bazel: 0.28.1 --> 1.1.0 * bazel-watcher sha256 * Fix missing line in patch * proto_source_root --> strip_import_prefix See https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/7153 for details. * Update rules_nixpkgs Required to avoid errors of the form ``` ERROR: An error occurred during the fetch of repository 'node_nix': parameter 'sep' may not be specified by name, for call to method split(sep, maxsplit = None) of 'string' ``` and ``` ERROR: An error occurred during the fetch of repository 'node_nix': Traceback (most recent call last): File "/private/var/tmp/_bazel_runner/17d2b3954f1c6dcf5414d5453467df9a/external/io_tweag_rules_nixpkgs/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.bzl", line 149 _execute_or_fail(repository_ctx, <3 more arguments>) File "/private/var/tmp/_bazel_runner/17d2b3954f1c6dcf5414d5453467df9a/external/io_tweag_rules_nixpkgs/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.bzl", line 318, in _execute_or_fail fail(<1 more arguments>) Cannot build Nix attribute 'nodejs'. Command: [/Users/runner/.nix-profile/bin/nix-build, /private/var/tmp/_bazel_runner/17d2b3954f1c6dcf5414d5453467df9a/external/node_nix/nix/bazel.nix, "-A", "nodejs", "--out-link", "bazel-support/nix-out-link", "-I", "nixpkgs=/private/var/tmp/_bazel_runner/17d2b3954f1c6dcf5414d5453467df9a/external/nixpkgs/nixpkgs"] Return code: 1 Error output: src/main/tools/process-tools.cc:173: "setitimer": Invalid argument ``` * Update rules_scala * .proto has been removed, use [ProtoInfo] instead See https://docs.bazel.build/versions/1.1.0/be/protocol-buffer.html#proto_library * python3_nix add nix_file attribute To avoid the following error ``` ERROR: /home/aj/tweag.io/da/da-bazel-1.1/BUILD:66:1: //:nix_python3_runtime depends on @python3_nix//:bin/python in repository @python3_nix which failed to fetch. no such package '@python3_nix//': Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/aj/.cache/bazel/_bazel_aj/5f825ad28f8e070f999ba37395e46ee5/external/io_tweag_rules_nixpkgs/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.bzl", line 149 _execute_or_fail(repository_ctx, <3 more arguments>) File "/home/aj/.cache/bazel/_bazel_aj/5f825ad28f8e070f999ba37395e46ee5/external/io_tweag_rules_nixpkgs/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.bzl", line 318, in _execute_or_fail fail(<1 more arguments>) Cannot build Nix attribute 'python3'. Command: [/home/aj/.nix-profile/bin/nix-build, "-E", "import <nixpkgs> { config = {}; overlays = []; }", "-A", "python3", "--out-link", "bazel-support/nix-out-link", "-I", "nixpkgs=/home/aj/.cache/bazel/_bazel_aj/5f825ad28f8e070f999ba37395e46ee5/external/nixpkgs/nixpkgs"] Return code: 1 Error output: error: anonymous function at /home/aj/.cache/bazel/_bazel_aj/5f825ad28f8e070f999ba37395e46ee5/external/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.nix:3:1 called with unexpected argument 'config', at (string):1:1 ``` * rules_haskell unnamed string.split(_, maxsplit = _) The keyword argument may no longer be named. * string.replace(_, _, maxsplit = _) may not be named * Move proto sources from deps to data Fixes ``` ERROR: /home/aj/tweag.io/da/da-bazel-1.1/daml-lf/archive/BUILD.bazel:150:1: in deps attribute of scala_test rule //daml-lf/archive:daml_lf_archive_reader_tests_test_suite_src_test_scala_com_digitalasset_daml_lf_archive_DecodeV1Spec.scala: '//daml-lf/archive:daml_lf_1.6_archive_proto_srcs' does not have mandatory providers: 'JavaInfo'. Since this rule was created by the macro 'da_scala_test_suite', the error might have been caused by the macro implementation ``` * Define sha256 for haskell_ghc__paths Bazel 1.1.0 fails on missing hashes. * Disable --incompatible_windows_native_test_wrapper * //compiler/daml-extension don't modify sources Modifying sources in-place can cause issues on Windows, where build actions are not sandboxed and changes on sources can affect other build steps. * bazel-genfiles --> bazel-bin The bazel-genfiles symlink has been removed since Bazel 1.0. See https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/8651 * Mark dev_env_tool repository rule as configure See https://docs.bazel.build/versions/1.1.0/skylark/lib/globals.html#repository_rule * Move data deps into data attribute * Mark dev_env_tool as local = True * Manually fetch @makensis_dev_env
2019-11-11 12:06:03 +03:00
TMP_DIR=$$(mktemp -d)
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
cleanup () {{ rm -rf $$TMP_DIR || return; }}
Bazel 1.1 (#3249) * bazel: 0.28.1 --> 1.1.0 * bazel-watcher sha256 * Fix missing line in patch * proto_source_root --> strip_import_prefix See https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/7153 for details. * Update rules_nixpkgs Required to avoid errors of the form ``` ERROR: An error occurred during the fetch of repository 'node_nix': parameter 'sep' may not be specified by name, for call to method split(sep, maxsplit = None) of 'string' ``` and ``` ERROR: An error occurred during the fetch of repository 'node_nix': Traceback (most recent call last): File "/private/var/tmp/_bazel_runner/17d2b3954f1c6dcf5414d5453467df9a/external/io_tweag_rules_nixpkgs/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.bzl", line 149 _execute_or_fail(repository_ctx, <3 more arguments>) File "/private/var/tmp/_bazel_runner/17d2b3954f1c6dcf5414d5453467df9a/external/io_tweag_rules_nixpkgs/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.bzl", line 318, in _execute_or_fail fail(<1 more arguments>) Cannot build Nix attribute 'nodejs'. Command: [/Users/runner/.nix-profile/bin/nix-build, /private/var/tmp/_bazel_runner/17d2b3954f1c6dcf5414d5453467df9a/external/node_nix/nix/bazel.nix, "-A", "nodejs", "--out-link", "bazel-support/nix-out-link", "-I", "nixpkgs=/private/var/tmp/_bazel_runner/17d2b3954f1c6dcf5414d5453467df9a/external/nixpkgs/nixpkgs"] Return code: 1 Error output: src/main/tools/process-tools.cc:173: "setitimer": Invalid argument ``` * Update rules_scala * .proto has been removed, use [ProtoInfo] instead See https://docs.bazel.build/versions/1.1.0/be/protocol-buffer.html#proto_library * python3_nix add nix_file attribute To avoid the following error ``` ERROR: /home/aj/tweag.io/da/da-bazel-1.1/BUILD:66:1: //:nix_python3_runtime depends on @python3_nix//:bin/python in repository @python3_nix which failed to fetch. no such package '@python3_nix//': Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/aj/.cache/bazel/_bazel_aj/5f825ad28f8e070f999ba37395e46ee5/external/io_tweag_rules_nixpkgs/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.bzl", line 149 _execute_or_fail(repository_ctx, <3 more arguments>) File "/home/aj/.cache/bazel/_bazel_aj/5f825ad28f8e070f999ba37395e46ee5/external/io_tweag_rules_nixpkgs/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.bzl", line 318, in _execute_or_fail fail(<1 more arguments>) Cannot build Nix attribute 'python3'. Command: [/home/aj/.nix-profile/bin/nix-build, "-E", "import <nixpkgs> { config = {}; overlays = []; }", "-A", "python3", "--out-link", "bazel-support/nix-out-link", "-I", "nixpkgs=/home/aj/.cache/bazel/_bazel_aj/5f825ad28f8e070f999ba37395e46ee5/external/nixpkgs/nixpkgs"] Return code: 1 Error output: error: anonymous function at /home/aj/.cache/bazel/_bazel_aj/5f825ad28f8e070f999ba37395e46ee5/external/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.nix:3:1 called with unexpected argument 'config', at (string):1:1 ``` * rules_haskell unnamed string.split(_, maxsplit = _) The keyword argument may no longer be named. * string.replace(_, _, maxsplit = _) may not be named * Move proto sources from deps to data Fixes ``` ERROR: /home/aj/tweag.io/da/da-bazel-1.1/daml-lf/archive/BUILD.bazel:150:1: in deps attribute of scala_test rule //daml-lf/archive:daml_lf_archive_reader_tests_test_suite_src_test_scala_com_digitalasset_daml_lf_archive_DecodeV1Spec.scala: '//daml-lf/archive:daml_lf_1.6_archive_proto_srcs' does not have mandatory providers: 'JavaInfo'. Since this rule was created by the macro 'da_scala_test_suite', the error might have been caused by the macro implementation ``` * Define sha256 for haskell_ghc__paths Bazel 1.1.0 fails on missing hashes. * Disable --incompatible_windows_native_test_wrapper * //compiler/daml-extension don't modify sources Modifying sources in-place can cause issues on Windows, where build actions are not sandboxed and changes on sources can affect other build steps. * bazel-genfiles --> bazel-bin The bazel-genfiles symlink has been removed since Bazel 1.0. See https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/8651 * Mark dev_env_tool repository rule as configure See https://docs.bazel.build/versions/1.1.0/skylark/lib/globals.html#repository_rule * Move data deps into data attribute * Mark dev_env_tool as local = True * Manually fetch @makensis_dev_env
2019-11-11 12:06:03 +03:00
trap cleanup EXIT
2019-07-13 00:35:05 +03:00
DIR=$$PWD
Bazel 1.1 (#3249) * bazel: 0.28.1 --> 1.1.0 * bazel-watcher sha256 * Fix missing line in patch * proto_source_root --> strip_import_prefix See https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/7153 for details. * Update rules_nixpkgs Required to avoid errors of the form ``` ERROR: An error occurred during the fetch of repository 'node_nix': parameter 'sep' may not be specified by name, for call to method split(sep, maxsplit = None) of 'string' ``` and ``` ERROR: An error occurred during the fetch of repository 'node_nix': Traceback (most recent call last): File "/private/var/tmp/_bazel_runner/17d2b3954f1c6dcf5414d5453467df9a/external/io_tweag_rules_nixpkgs/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.bzl", line 149 _execute_or_fail(repository_ctx, <3 more arguments>) File "/private/var/tmp/_bazel_runner/17d2b3954f1c6dcf5414d5453467df9a/external/io_tweag_rules_nixpkgs/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.bzl", line 318, in _execute_or_fail fail(<1 more arguments>) Cannot build Nix attribute 'nodejs'. Command: [/Users/runner/.nix-profile/bin/nix-build, /private/var/tmp/_bazel_runner/17d2b3954f1c6dcf5414d5453467df9a/external/node_nix/nix/bazel.nix, "-A", "nodejs", "--out-link", "bazel-support/nix-out-link", "-I", "nixpkgs=/private/var/tmp/_bazel_runner/17d2b3954f1c6dcf5414d5453467df9a/external/nixpkgs/nixpkgs"] Return code: 1 Error output: src/main/tools/process-tools.cc:173: "setitimer": Invalid argument ``` * Update rules_scala * .proto has been removed, use [ProtoInfo] instead See https://docs.bazel.build/versions/1.1.0/be/protocol-buffer.html#proto_library * python3_nix add nix_file attribute To avoid the following error ``` ERROR: /home/aj/tweag.io/da/da-bazel-1.1/BUILD:66:1: //:nix_python3_runtime depends on @python3_nix//:bin/python in repository @python3_nix which failed to fetch. no such package '@python3_nix//': Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/aj/.cache/bazel/_bazel_aj/5f825ad28f8e070f999ba37395e46ee5/external/io_tweag_rules_nixpkgs/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.bzl", line 149 _execute_or_fail(repository_ctx, <3 more arguments>) File "/home/aj/.cache/bazel/_bazel_aj/5f825ad28f8e070f999ba37395e46ee5/external/io_tweag_rules_nixpkgs/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.bzl", line 318, in _execute_or_fail fail(<1 more arguments>) Cannot build Nix attribute 'python3'. Command: [/home/aj/.nix-profile/bin/nix-build, "-E", "import <nixpkgs> { config = {}; overlays = []; }", "-A", "python3", "--out-link", "bazel-support/nix-out-link", "-I", "nixpkgs=/home/aj/.cache/bazel/_bazel_aj/5f825ad28f8e070f999ba37395e46ee5/external/nixpkgs/nixpkgs"] Return code: 1 Error output: error: anonymous function at /home/aj/.cache/bazel/_bazel_aj/5f825ad28f8e070f999ba37395e46ee5/external/nixpkgs/nixpkgs.nix:3:1 called with unexpected argument 'config', at (string):1:1 ``` * rules_haskell unnamed string.split(_, maxsplit = _) The keyword argument may no longer be named. * string.replace(_, _, maxsplit = _) may not be named * Move proto sources from deps to data Fixes ``` ERROR: /home/aj/tweag.io/da/da-bazel-1.1/daml-lf/archive/BUILD.bazel:150:1: in deps attribute of scala_test rule //daml-lf/archive:daml_lf_archive_reader_tests_test_suite_src_test_scala_com_digitalasset_daml_lf_archive_DecodeV1Spec.scala: '//daml-lf/archive:daml_lf_1.6_archive_proto_srcs' does not have mandatory providers: 'JavaInfo'. Since this rule was created by the macro 'da_scala_test_suite', the error might have been caused by the macro implementation ``` * Define sha256 for haskell_ghc__paths Bazel 1.1.0 fails on missing hashes. * Disable --incompatible_windows_native_test_wrapper * //compiler/daml-extension don't modify sources Modifying sources in-place can cause issues on Windows, where build actions are not sandboxed and changes on sources can affect other build steps. * bazel-genfiles --> bazel-bin The bazel-genfiles symlink has been removed since Bazel 1.0. See https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/8651 * Mark dev_env_tool repository rule as configure See https://docs.bazel.build/versions/1.1.0/skylark/lib/globals.html#repository_rule * Move data deps into data attribute * Mark dev_env_tool as local = True * Manually fetch @makensis_dev_env
2019-11-11 12:06:03 +03:00
cp -r compiler/daml-extension $$TMP_DIR
cd $$TMP_DIR/daml-extension
2019-07-13 00:35:05 +03:00
tar xzf $$DIR/$(location :node_deps_cache)
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
sed -i "s/__VERSION__/{npm}/" package.json
2019-07-13 00:35:05 +03:00
sed -i 's/"name": "daml"/"name": "daml-bundled"/' package.json
$$DIR/$(location //:yarn) compile
# vsce needs Yarn or NPM in path and for some reason NPM
# fails to find npm-cli.js so we use Yarn.
PATH=$$(dirname $$DIR/$(location //:yarn)):$$PATH $$DIR/$(location @daml_extension_deps//vsce/bin:vsce) package --yarn -o $$DIR/$@
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
""".format(npm = npm_version),
2019-07-13 00:35:05 +03:00
tools = [
"//:yarn",
2019-07-13 00:35:05 +03:00
"@daml_extension_deps//vsce/bin:vsce",
],
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
)