New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update existing change feature #3701

Closed
rjarry opened this Issue Oct 17, 2017 · 1 comment

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@rjarry
Contributor

rjarry commented Oct 17, 2017

Sometimes, it is convenient to re-send a change to the server to "rebuild" a set of builds. The reason behind that can be:

  • There was an infrastructure problem and we need to run everything again.
  • We need to rebuild the same revision but with different change properties

For now, when doing that, a new change is created but linked to the same sourcestampid than the old change. And builds are re-scheduled but linked to the old change (so new properties are ignored).

It would be better to update the existing change with the new properties and re-trigger schedulers with the same changes/sourcestamp.

@Hyask

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Hyask

Hyask Nov 30, 2017

Contributor

Just for the record, after some discussions with @rjarry.

A hack can be done to fix the problem there:

q = changes_tbl.select(

Just append .order_by(changes_tbl.c.changeid.desc()) to the query, so that the last change corresponding the to the asked sourcestampid is fetched, rather than the first.

This works, at least in my personal simple case, but will likely never get upstream, since this is just a hack, and a better solution should be found.

Contributor

Hyask commented Nov 30, 2017

Just for the record, after some discussions with @rjarry.

A hack can be done to fix the problem there:

q = changes_tbl.select(

Just append .order_by(changes_tbl.c.changeid.desc()) to the query, so that the last change corresponding the to the asked sourcestampid is fetched, rather than the first.

This works, at least in my personal simple case, but will likely never get upstream, since this is just a hack, and a better solution should be found.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment