daml/azure-pipelines.yml

293 lines
11 KiB
YAML
Raw Normal View History

# Copyright (c) 2021 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:
- main
- release/*
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
# Enable PR triggers that target the main branch
pr: none
2019-04-04 11:33:38 +03:00
jobs:
- template: ci/build.yml
- job: check_perf_test
pool:
name: linux-pool
demands: assignment -equals default
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)
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
echo "Changes detected, but not from this commit."
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
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'),
eq(variables['Build.SourceBranchName'], 'main'))
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'] ]
script-runner: $[ dependencies.Linux.outputs['publish.script-runner'] ]
trigger-runner: $[ dependencies.Linux.outputs['publish.trigger-runner'] ]
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) $(release_sha); then
git push origin v$(release_tag)
mkdir $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release
mkdir $(Build.StagingDirectory)/artifactory
else
echo "##vso[task.setvariable variable=skip-github]TRUE"
fi
- task: DownloadPipelineArtifact@0
inputs:
artifactName: $(linux-tarball)
targetPath: $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
- task: DownloadPipelineArtifact@0
inputs:
artifactName: $(macos-tarball)
targetPath: $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
- task: DownloadPipelineArtifact@0
inputs:
artifactName: $(windows-tarball)
targetPath: $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
- task: DownloadPipelineArtifact@0
inputs:
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'))
- task: DownloadPipelineArtifact@0
inputs:
artifactName: $(trigger-runner)
targetPath: $(Build.StagingDirectory)/artifactory
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
- task: DownloadPipelineArtifact@0
inputs:
artifactName: $(script-runner)
targetPath: $(Build.StagingDirectory)/artifactory
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
KEY_FILE=$(mktemp)
GPG_DIR=$(mktemp -d)
cleanup() {
rm -rf $KEY_FILE $GPG_DIR
}
trap cleanup EXIT
echo "$GPG_KEY" | base64 -d > $KEY_FILE
gpg --homedir $GPG_DIR --no-tty --quiet --import $KEY_FILE
cd $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release
sha256sum $(find . -type f | sort) > sha256sums
# 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
cd ../artifactory
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'
releaseNotes: "This is a pre-release. Use at your own risk."
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
push() {
local file repository local_path md5 sha1
repository=$1
file=$2
local_path=$(Build.StagingDirectory)/artifactory/${file}
md5=$(md5sum ${local_path} | awk '{print $1}')
sha1=$(sha1sum ${local_path} | awk '{print $1}')
curl -f \
-u "$AUTH" \
-H "X-Checksum-MD5:${md5}" \
-H "X-Checksum-SHA1:${sha1}" \
-X PUT \
-T ${local_path} \
https://digitalasset.jfrog.io/artifactory/${repository}/$(release_tag)/${file}
}
2019-07-05 14:35:30 +03:00
push daml-trigger-runner $(trigger-runner)
push daml-trigger-runner $(trigger-runner).asc
push daml-script-runner $(script-runner)
push daml-script-runner $(script-runner).asc
env:
AUTH: $(ARTIFACTORY_USERPASS)
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
- template: ci/bash-lib.yml
parameters:
var_name: bash-lib
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
source $(bash-lib)
cd $(Build.StagingDirectory)/release
for f in *; do
gcs "$GCRED" cp "$f" "gs://daml-data/releases/$(release_tag)/github/$f"
done
cd $(Build.StagingDirectory)/artifactory
for f in *; do
gcs "$GCRED" cp "$f" "gs://daml-data/releases/$(release_tag)/artifactory/$f"
done
name: backup_to_gcs
env:
GCRED: $(GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS_CONTENT)
condition: not(eq(variables['skip-github'], 'TRUE'))
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
pr_handler=$(head -1 release/rotation | awk '{print $1}')
curl -XPOST \
-i \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--data "{\"text\":\"<@${pr_handler}> Release \`$(release_tag)\` is ready for testing. See <https://github.com/digital-asset/daml/blob/main/release/RELEASE.md|release instructions>. (<https://dev.azure.com/digitalasset/daml/_build/results?buildId=$(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>)\"}" \
$(Slack.team-daml)
- template: ci/tell-slack-failed.yml
parameters:
trigger_sha: '$(trigger_sha)'
- template: ci/report-end.yml
- job: compat_versions_pr
dependsOn:
- git_sha
- release
- check_for_release
pool:
name: linux-pool
demands: assignment -equals default
variables:
release_tag: $[ dependencies.check_for_release.outputs['out.release_tag'] ]
branch_sha: $[ dependencies.git_sha.outputs['out.branch'] ]
steps:
- checkout: self
persistCredentials: true
- bash: ci/dev-env-install.sh
- template: ci/bash-lib.yml
parameters:
var_name: bash_lib
- bash: |
set -euo pipefail
eval "$(./dev-env/bin/dade-assist)"
source $(bash_lib)
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."
2019-07-10 22:52:50 +03:00
exit 1
fi
done
trap "git checkout $(branch_sha)" EXIT
git checkout origin/main
cp .bazelrc compatibility/
compatibility/update-versions.sh
git add compatibility/versions.bzl compatibility/maven_install.json
BRANCH=update-compat-versions-for-$(release_tag)-$(Build.BuildId)
TITLE="update compat versions for $(release_tag)"
open_pr "$BRANCH" "$TITLE"
setvar "branch" "$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-18.04"
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