Skip to content
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

tools: add update script for googletest #47482

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 19, 2023

Conversation

tniessen
Copy link
Member

@tniessen tniessen commented Apr 8, 2023

I haven't done one of these before, so please review carefully.

GoogleTest follows the Abseil Live at Head philosophy, and rarely creates tags or GitHub releases, so instead, follow Google's recommendation and update to the upstream HEAD every once in a while.

The tricky bit is properly updating googletest.gyp, and this script might fail doing so in the future.

Refs: nodejs/security-wg#828

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Review requested:

  • @nodejs/actions

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project. tools Issues and PRs related to the tools directory. labels Apr 8, 2023
@marco-ippolito
Copy link
Member

Im not sure about updating the gyp file, its too complex to automate it we should probably do it manually

@tniessen
Copy link
Member Author

tniessen commented Apr 8, 2023

Im not sure about updating the gyp file, its too complex to automate it we should probably do it manually

I tend to agree with that in general. However, in this case, if the script does make a mistake in producing the gyp file, we still have our regular review process as well as Github Actions and Jenkins CI as safeguards, and we can still fix the gyp file manually if necessary. A mistake that is not caught by any of these safeguards could just as well be the result of manual work.

In other words, we can take the generated gyp file as a suggestion, which hopefully will be correct in most cases, thus usually removing the need to update it manually. When we or our automated tests notice a problem with the suggested change, we can still resort to updating it manually.

I'll try and see what happens with previous versions of googletest (i.e., if the script would have made mistakes in the past). That being said, I'd be happy to switch to a more reliable approach if we can come up with one.

Copy link
Member

@anonrig anonrig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like this approach. Recently, I read about a similar blog post about how Github updates its Ruby version every week by following main branch. We can always revert back or interfere with the upgrade process and I believe this would be a valuable lesson/experience we could benefit as the whole Node.js project.

Copy link
Member

@marco-ippolito marco-ippolito left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, lets try with this approach if we are happy we can extend it to zlib and also try to automate some other dependencies gyp

@tniessen tniessen marked this pull request as ready for review April 13, 2023 22:27
@tniessen tniessen added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Apr 18, 2023
@tniessen
Copy link
Member Author

Appeased lint-sh. PTAL @marco-ippolito.

@tniessen
Copy link
Member Author

Rebased again and updated for #47591.

GoogleTest follows the Abseil Live at Head philosophy, and rarely
creates tags or GitHub releases, so instead, follow Google's
recommendation and update to the upstream HEAD every once in a while.

The tricky bit is properly updating googletest.gyp, and this script
might fail doing so in the future.

Refs: nodejs/security-wg#828
@tniessen
Copy link
Member Author

@marco-ippolito Is my understanding correct that the GitHub action will keep updating the same PR instead of opening new ones if a new update is found before the PR is merged? That would be great to reduce noise in this case, if we could just keep the PR open regardless of how often the action runs.

@marco-ippolito
Copy link
Member

if there is a pr for 1.0.1 and the version1.0.2 is released, another pr will be created. if the latest is the 1.0.1 pr it will not create another one for every run. I dont think it doesnt happen very often but it would be great to update or close the PR for the previous version.

@richardlau
Copy link
Member

if there is a pr for 1.0.1 and the version1.0.2 is released, another pr will be created. if the latest is the 1.0.1 pr it will not create another one for every run. I dont think it doesnt happen very often but it would be great to update or close the PR for the previous version.

According to https://github.com/gr2m/create-or-update-pull-request-action#how-it-works it should update the existing PR (more specifically, it pushes to the same branch as the previously opened PR for the dependency). I've seen this happen on some of the Undici PRs (e.g. #46502).

@marco-ippolito
Copy link
Member

marco-ippolito commented Apr 19, 2023

According to https://github.com/gr2m/create-or-update-pull-request-action#how-it-works it should update the existing PR (more specifically, it pushes to the same branch as the previously opened PR for the dependency). I've seen this happen on some of the Undici PRs (e.g. #46502).

Oh that's great then we are good on this

@tniessen
Copy link
Member Author

I like that not creating additional PRs reduces notification noise, but it unfortunately seems to unnecessarily keep old commits and also doesn't update the PR title or description.

@richardlau
Copy link
Member

I like that not creating additional PRs reduces notification noise, but it unfortunately seems to unnecessarily keep old commits and also doesn't update the PR title or description.

Updating the title/body can be controlled by the update-pull-request-title-and-body action parameter.

@tniessen
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks, I saw that in the docs right after I left the previous comment and opened #47621.

Regardless, this PR needs to be re-approved after the last force-push :)

@tniessen tniessen added the commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. label Apr 19, 2023
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot removed the commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. label Apr 19, 2023
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot merged commit 4956271 into nodejs:main Apr 19, 2023
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Landed in 4956271

targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 2, 2023
GoogleTest follows the Abseil Live at Head philosophy, and rarely
creates tags or GitHub releases, so instead, follow Google's
recommendation and update to the upstream HEAD every once in a while.

The tricky bit is properly updating googletest.gyp, and this script
might fail doing so in the future.

Refs: nodejs/security-wg#828
PR-URL: #47482
Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Marco Ippolito <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Rafael Gonzaga <[email protected]>
@targos targos mentioned this pull request May 2, 2023
danielleadams pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 6, 2023
GoogleTest follows the Abseil Live at Head philosophy, and rarely
creates tags or GitHub releases, so instead, follow Google's
recommendation and update to the upstream HEAD every once in a while.

The tricky bit is properly updating googletest.gyp, and this script
might fail doing so in the future.

Refs: nodejs/security-wg#828
PR-URL: #47482
Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Marco Ippolito <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Rafael Gonzaga <[email protected]>
MoLow pushed a commit to MoLow/node that referenced this pull request Jul 6, 2023
GoogleTest follows the Abseil Live at Head philosophy, and rarely
creates tags or GitHub releases, so instead, follow Google's
recommendation and update to the upstream HEAD every once in a while.

The tricky bit is properly updating googletest.gyp, and this script
might fail doing so in the future.

Refs: nodejs/security-wg#828
PR-URL: nodejs#47482
Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Marco Ippolito <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Rafael Gonzaga <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project. tools Issues and PRs related to the tools directory.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants