Enforce rollback safety PR checks - #5731
Conversation
This reverts commit 2c10c76.
…rgo-ci-merge-5687 # Conflicts: # tools/ci/README.md # tools/ci/src/main.rs
Signed-off-by: Zeke Foppa <196249+bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
… into bfops/rollback-safety
|
|
||
| # Must be released | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- List PRs that must be included in a release before this PR can merge. Supported forms include #123, SpacetimeDB#123, clockworklabs/SpacetimeDB#123, and GitHub PR URLs. Leave this section empty if there are none. --> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rather than "Leave this section empty if there are none," I would rather have, "include 'n/a', in this section if this PR is safe to roll back after deployment and has no impact on the rollback-safety of any prior PRs," and recognize the case where that string (case-insensitive, preferably) appears in this section outside of a comment. I want to reject any PR where the author doesn't demonstrate that they've thought about this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd also like this description to be more clear that the burden is not just that the linked PR must be released before this can merge, but also that this PR cannot be deployed until the linked PRs:
- Are deployed.
- Have been sufficiently observed and/or tested in the live deployment that we are confident they will never roll back.
It would be nice to have verbiage about the types of changes that may impact rollback safety, namely:
- If this PR newly writes to a ControlDB table or reducer, system table, or on-disk data format that was previously introduced but unused.
- If this PR clears, deletes, incompatibly changes, or renders unsupported a ControlDB table or reducer, system table, or on-disk data format that was previously present or available.
(The ControlDB stuff is only relevant for PRs to the private repo, but I think it's fine to list here and it'll make things easier if we use the same template in both places.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That sounds great. What do you think of this version?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Signed-off-by: Zeke Foppa <196249+bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Zeke Foppa <196249+bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Zeke Foppa <196249+bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
…etimeDB into bfops/rollback-safety
283bfd0 to
c982950
Compare
4 participants
Description of Changes
Updates the PR template with a new section for noting PRs that must be released before the current PR can merge. We also add a CI check that this field has been updated, and to enforce that those PRs have actually been released.
A lot of the logic is added in a separate library so that it could hypothetically be used either from release flows or CI flows, without introducing a direct dependency between the two of them (it's not obvious to me that CI "should" depend on release, or vice-versa).
API and ABI breaking changes
None
Expected complexity level and risk
2
Rollback safety impact
n/a
Testing