Arvados

Ready for review at commit:a396c2d8cb4c103c0e76a7e225fa2fa68437f9c4 on branch 18093-create-release-ticket in the arvados-dev repo

The relevant command is

./art redmine issues create-release-issue -h
Create a release ticket with numbered subtasks for all the steps on the release checklist.

The subtask subjects are read from a file named TASKS in the current directory.

Finally, a new Redmine release will also be created for the next release.

The REDMINE_ENDPOINT environment variable must be set to the base URL of your redmine server.
The REDMINE_APIKEY environment variable must be set to your redmine API key.

Usage:
  art redmine issues create-release-issue [flags]

Flags:
  -n, --new-release-version string   Semantic version number of the new release
  -p, --project int                  Redmine project ID
  -s, --sprint int                   Redmine sprint (aka Version) ID

Global Flags:
  -d, --debug           Print debug output
  -h, --help            Print help
  -o, --output string   Output format. Empty for human-readable, 'json' or 'json-line'

Looks good, just a couple notes:

1. From discussion on slack, the project id isn't really visible (even in the URLs used by redmine) so it would be better if it could accept the project id "arvados" instead of "36".

2. The tasks that are created don't exactly line up with the checklist:

https://dev.arvados.org/projects/arvados/wiki/Release_Checklist

Task 0 on that checklist is just a meta-task "write the code" so it's fine that art doesn't create it

But then TASKS is missing task 1 (testing) and starts at 0 so task 0 created by art is task 2 on the checklist, and numbering of everything else is off.

Suggest adding "manual testing" as the first line of TASKS, and have art start from 1.

I noticed one other problem:

[ok] the redmine release object for the next release is '' (https://dev.arvados.org/rb/release/0)

I think this is just a logging issue because it seems like an Arvados 2.3.2 release was still actually created.

Peter Amstutz wrote:

Looks good, just a couple notes:

1. From discussion on slack, the project id isn't really visible (even in the URLs used by redmine) so it would be better if it could accept the project id "arvados" instead of "36".

Good idea, done.

2. The tasks that are created don't exactly line up with the checklist:

https://dev.arvados.org/projects/arvados/wiki/Release_Checklist

Task 0 on that checklist is just a meta-task "write the code" so it's fine that art doesn't create it

But then TASKS is missing task 1 (testing) and starts at 0 so task 0 created by art is task 2 on the checklist, and numbering of everything else is off.

Suggest adding "manual testing" as the first line of TASKS, and have art start from 1.

Done, also updated the TASKS list to the latest from the Release Checklist.

I noticed one other problem:

[...]

I think this is just a logging issue because it seems like an Arvados 2.3.2 release was still actually created.

Yeah, good catch, that's fixed now too.

Latest in commit:59d32d46d2d4b2be0159613c5b9c2e64c72f94c7 on branch 18093-create-release-ticket

Ward Vandewege wrote:

Peter Amstutz wrote:

Looks good, just a couple notes:

1. From discussion on slack, the project id isn't really visible (even in the URLs used by redmine) so it would be better if it could accept the project id "arvados" instead of "36".

Good idea, done.

2. The tasks that are created don't exactly line up with the checklist:

https://dev.arvados.org/projects/arvados/wiki/Release_Checklist

Task 0 on that checklist is just a meta-task "write the code" so it's fine that art doesn't create it

But then TASKS is missing task 1 (testing) and starts at 0 so task 0 created by art is task 2 on the checklist, and numbering of everything else is off.

Suggest adding "manual testing" as the first line of TASKS, and have art start from 1.

Done, also updated the TASKS list to the latest from the Release Checklist.

I noticed one other problem:

[...]

I think this is just a logging issue because it seems like an Arvados 2.3.2 release was still actually created.

Yeah, good catch, that's fixed now too.

Latest in commit:59d32d46d2d4b2be0159613c5b9c2e64c72f94c7 on branch 18093-create-release-ticket

LGTM