Tinderbox results in bugzilla, jetpack times 2, CouchDB, review board

mstange‘s Tinderboxpushlog is awesome.  You know it, I know it, the many people whose sanity has been saved by it know it.  It is a fantastic improvement on checking the tinderbox; it lets you know the current state of the tree, the recent history of the tree, and how these things are correlated with recent commits.  What it is not good at (nor intended for) is to be a historical record.  Tinderboxpushlog ‘scrapes’ the tinderbox on-demand using tinderbox time windows and does not have the ability to key off anything but the time.

So if one refactored the scraper into a CommonJS module suitable for use with the newly rebooted jetpack, hooked it up to a cron job, and crammed its outputinto a CouchDB database, what would you get?

Exactly, something you can hook up to johnath and ehsan‘s magic bugzilla jetpack (last mentioned on the blog here).  You can install it from here.  (johnath/ehsan, please feel free to pull the changes into the upstream repo; I’m still wary of randomly pushing things into other people’s user repos…).  I know the presentation is ugly, not the least because the text labels are inconsistent with tinderboxpushlog; feel free to push into my user repo with improvements.  Oh, and for this to work you need to put an honest-to-goodness URL in your bugzilla comment or attachment description; there is no all-powerful regex if you type things out by hand.

You can find the thing that pushes thing into the couch using refactored tinderboxpushlog logic here.  Some cuddlefish runner tweaks (not all of which are likely advisable) can be found in my user jetpack-sdk repo.  (The new jetpack reboot is wicked awesome, by the way.)

Right now the cron job is running against the MozillaTry, Firefox, and Thunderbird3.1 trees on the tinderbox every 5 minutes.  While it should be pretty easy for me to keep the cron job and couch server online, I make no guarantees about the schema used in the couch, just that I will keep the jetpack in sync with it.  And if the service starts exceeding the resources of my (personal) linode, I may have to tweak polling rates or what not (‘what not’ meaning ‘up to and including turning it off’).

There is other work happening in this area and I am excited about that.  For example, I think brasstacks has an encompassing vision that should help provide historical data about which tests failed, etc.  With any luck, my efforts here will be mooted by buildbot and magic awesome dust.

The mention of reviewboard in the title is just that if you are using my review board stuff and put a link to your try server commit in the attachment description, we will use that to pull the official hg changeset as the basis for the diff.  The main benefit of this is that if your patch depends on other patches in your queue that are not yet in the trunk, the diff will still work out.  Specifically, if your queue had A, B, and C applied (where C is the tip) and you link to C, then we will provide a diff of C relative to B.  Please be aware that hg.mozilla.org is rather slow about providing the hg changeset diffs on demand so this will be at least an order of magnitude slower than the fetch of an already-available patch from bugzilla.  Repo with changes is here.

Review Board and Bugzilla reviews, take 3

I’ve updated my review board setup once more (part 2, part 1).  The low barrier to entry is now even lower.  “How low?”, you might ask.  “On the ground!”, I might say.  “What other low low price features with big big value are on offer? With more facts and less spiel?”, you might then also ask…

  • It now works with patches that have a header.  Patches that were the result of an mq import and then directly uploaded will tend to have headers.  This was why sometimes patches would fail to import with unlikely errors about empty patches.
  • There is now a magic URL scheme that automatically pulls the patch, creates a review and bounces you to the review.  If the review already exists, it just directly bounces you.  That URL scheme is http://reviews.visophyte.org/r/bzpatch/bug###/attach###/.  There are no authentication requirements on using this URL nor viewing the diff or associated reviews.  However, if you want to actually use the review mechanism to make comments then you will need to login via OpenID.  See part 2 for more on that.
  • I modified johnath and Ehsan Akhgari’s magic bugzilla jetpack so that it also adds a “Review” link to patches.  My modified repo is here.  You can install it from here.  You can see what the word “Review” looks like up in the first screenshot.
  • I upgraded to the reviewboard git trunk.  This adds some improvements to the diff display such as showing you function context information, even if the patch did not include it.  (And even if it did, too.  A lot of patches involving C++ truncate the function signature, whereas as you can see in the screenshot, you get the full text!)  I believe it is also supposed to be clever about recognizing moved blocks.

Limitations and other notes:

  • Patch fetching is synchronous and can take a while because we also parse it all up before we return.  Do not sit there hitting reload.  We’ll give you an error message if it doesn’t work out.  Not a great one, but an error message nonetheless.
  • Patches are still assumed to be against mozilla-central or comm-central (depending on the bugzilla product) trunk as of the moment we fetch the patch.  This means bit-rotted patches that you are only looking at now may fail to apply.  At the same time, patches where you clicked on the link back when it was timely and go back to look at them now that they are going out of style are still going to be applied against the same revision they were in the first place.
  • The repo with my modified changes (on the bzreview-master branch) was nuked and re-created because of the svn -> git transition by the reviewboard people.  So if you previously pulled, you should probably blow your old repo away rather than end up with a weird hybrid mixture.  (btw, hg-git works very nicely, with the caveat that its bookmark-based representation of the git branching idiom confuses pbranch really quite badly.)
  • Ping me on IRC or drop me an e-mail if you are experiencing reliable problems after having determined that the patch in question is not just full of gibberish.

Review Board and Bugzilla reviews, take 2.


Last time I played with Review Board and bugzilla request queues things were great for me, but no one else.  I had to create an account for you on the instance, add you to my script that synchronizes request queues, run the script, and then keep running the script periodically.  Not to mention there wasn’t really a way to get your review out and into bugzilla.  No one actually tried to use it, so they probably also didn’t notice there were caching issues related to the ever-changing definition of “HEAD” (“tip”).  It sucked, and when I upgraded and everything broke, no one cared, not even me.

But now it’s back and better than ever:


  • People don’t need to login at all to see review requests and reviews!  Just point them at the URL and away they go.  (Actually, this was the case before, but it was not obvious.)
  • You can/must sign in with Open ID!  If you have Weave and are reading this in the future, Weave can be your Open ID friend!  If you are like me and live in the present (Weave 0.3.2), something is wrong and it doesn’t work, not to mention that Weave takes over the Open ID box so you can’t use credentials that work.
  • There’s a button that updates your request queue for the 16 most recent requests made of you.  Just make sure that you have entered your bugzilla e-mail address on the “my account” page.  This may have happened automatically depending on what your Open ID provider provided/you told them to provide.
  • There’s export functionality so you can take your review and cram it in bugzilla.
  • The definition of “tip” gets nailed down when the review request gets created, so no more ugly caching issues.  Patches can still fail to apply, though, if “tip” has drifted from when the patch was first created.
  • It has friendlier assumptions about what repo you are dealing with.  Thunderbird/MailNews Core/Calendar/SeaMonkey are all assumed to be in comm-central, everyone else is assumed to be in mozilla-central.  Patches against other repos (including mozilla 1.9.1) clearly will not work without additional logic (and some kind of extra info, like people putting “1.9.1” in their attachment descriptions.)

Here is a (fake) example of the “pretty” review output that is possible if you tell people about your reviewboard review (see it live here).  Although it says Bienvenu, it’s just me pretending to be him because his review queue is more interesting than mine.  The comments are accordingly mine.


Now, what does the export look like (see it live here)?

on file: mailnews/base/src/nsMessenger.cpp line 635
>     // if we have a mailbox:// url that points to an .eml file, we have to read
>     // the file size as well

what a pretty comment

on file: mailnews/base/src/nsMessenger.cpp line 642
>     NS_ENSURE_SUCCESS(rv, rv);

please rename rv ARRRRRR-VEEEEEE

Yeah, it looks like that.

A quick feature summary that explains why this is better than just looking at diffs in bugzilla:

  • Syntax highlighting!
  • It actually has the full-context of the rest of the file!  No more being limited to the 3 or 8 lines of context in the diff you are provided.  I know I have done a lazy review and let a bug through that would not have happened if I had more context at my fingertips (or was not sometimes lazy).
  • People just trimming down your patch to what they are commenting on leaves you with no context of what changed at all!

Useful links:

  • A more interesting live diff to check out.
  • The root of the review board that will prompt you to login via an Open ID account.  When syncing your review queue, please keep in mind that it can take a bit to do all the legwork and you won’t see any feedback until it is actually done doing everything else.  You should get some form of feedback no matter what happens, so don’t keep hitting refresh.
  • The hg repo for my modified version of review-board.  It’s based on an extremely shallow hgsvn checkout.  My questionable development strategy was to make changes with emacs locally, commit, then push to my VM, so the changesets are sometimes a bit excessive.

Caveat usor:

  • This is running on a linode VM right now.  This is better than my local box or what not, but it’s not Mo[MC]o IT or anything.
  • My changes, at least the export functionality, may be buggy.  You may need to rely on me to fix the export functionality to get your stuff out that way.  (If the hg diff doesn’t apply cleanly, you can’t enter data to lose it, so I’m less concerned about that.)
  • I have no plans to blow away the database, but at the same time, please be prepared for the possibility that space ninjas destroy your data.  Use the export functionality and save it to a text file or something periodically if you’re doing a major review.  (In case it’s not obvious, the export functionality is the text labeled “bugzilla-style export” to the right of the reviewer’s name at the top-left of each review.)  You can do your review in multiple passes, exporting each review pass individually.
  • I am confident something will go wrong.  Feel free to post comments here or ping me on IRC (:asuth).
  • If people actually try using this, I’ll stop developing on the live server, but do be aware that apache restarts (lasting a few seconds) may periodically happen, but this should not really impact anything.


Using BugXhibit to find that bug you know you saw recently but can’t find


BugXhibit, the Bugzilla search results viewer made with the SIMILE Exhibit widget, is now more fancy, and now addresses another one of my use cases.  I frequently find myself wanting to point someone at a bug, or go back to a bug that I know passed through my bugmail recently, and have trouble finding it.  So now BugXhibit can do easy searches based on reporter/assignee/cc/commenter with time ranges.

Examples by way of live links this time (noting that the default time interval is 7 days).  Uh, and if it gives you an error for reasons I don’t fully understand if you open it in a new tab (in the background) from here, just hitting enter in the address bar should fix it.  I’m going to lazyweb that problem for now.

Other changes:

  • It now is also self documenting, just click on “Show Docs” on the page.
  • You can now use arguments to specify the sort and whether grouping is active on the page.
  • The date parsing is better.  Bugzilla doesn’t provide the raw dates but attempts to change things based on how recent the date is.  BugXhibit does a good job of fixing up the date if you are in the same timezone as the bugzilla server, and a less good but acceptable job if you aren’t.
  • Upgraded to exhibit 2.1.0 and now the numeric sliders with histograms work for me.  Woo!

Other notes:

The hg repo is here, as always.

BugXhibit: Exhibit on Bugzilla results


I know it has sorta been done before (found via Bugzilla Fixup Wiki Page on a comment by faaborg), and I feel like there has to be another live version somewhere, but here we are.  BugXhibit is an MIT SIMILE Exhibit widget fronting a bugzilla.mozilla.org quicksearch query.

Click here to go to a BugXhibit page where you can enter your own query.  Enter “gloda” if you want to see what the screenshots are based on.  I feel like it would be improper of me to provide a link with a live query though.

Go visit the hg repo.  Or just download the source from the previous link.  Please improve!  (See the SIMILE Exhibit docs for how to do that.  It’s all really easy.)



  • This uses bugzilla’s ctype=js for buglist.cgi.  It apparently has been around since 2003 (bug)!  And thanks to Gerv!  Perhaps not too surprisingly, the format of the results is not inert JSON but live JS code that builds a would-be-Array where each bug’s info is stored in an array.  What each element in the array stands for cannot be known from the results.  I find that using ctype=csv is a good way to get the headers.  Rather than doing that every time (cost concerns on the redundant query), I did it once for columnlist=all (which we always use) and stashed it in bugxhibit.js.  This is dangerous because it is brittle; if you try and use bugxhibit against a saved search someone made public, I at least got many fewer columns (despite columnlist=all), and things just don’t match.  Not to mention there is a “cf_blocking_fennec” flag in there that I feel like should not be there.
  • It looks pretty easy to have bugzilla produce more sane JSON output via a template (although the security code that logs you out for a js request still should run, so don’t forget buglist.cgi.)
  • Even with all columns exposed when using buglist.cgi, there are lots of interesting things that are not exposed.  For example, flags are not exposed via buglist.cgi, so faceting on whether things are blockers or wanted can’t be done.  Once you know the bug numbers from the query, you can obviously go fetch additional information, though I think that currently still needs to be XML format, but that’s not that hard.
  • The code is friendly and splits up the whiteboard and keyword things so it does what you would expect and is not stupid.
  • I made sliders for patch count and votes.  They don’t work for me anymore, and I see XUL wrapper anger (on Firefox 3.0.x), so, uh, don’t be surprised if they fall down.
  • The UI obviously sucks.  But it’s a proof of concept, and you are the internet!  You can do anything!

using review board for bugzilla request queues / reviews


Review board is a delightful django-based review tool.  Whereas bugzilla’s diff display is limited to taking the provided diff and coloring hunks without additional context, review board actually retrieves the underlying files from mercurial, applies the patch, colorizes the source files (using pygments), and thus can give you additional context.  Also, it allows you to click on line(s) and attach a note at that location.

Anywho, I made a new tool that ‘synchronizes’ bugzilla request queues with review board.  It finds the things in your request queue, and then creates a review in review board, transferring the patch.  There is some limited hard-coded biasing towards comm-central, but it’s arguably easily adaptable.  It uses a slightly hacked up version of the post-review script found in review board’s contrib directory to serve as the API to review board.


The intent is to make it easier for people, or at least me, to do reviews.  I am definitely NOT proposing that the review “of record” live outside bugzilla.  But I think it might make it easier to prepare reviews in the first place.  For example, see the picture below?  It’s the result of my clicking on lines of code and making notes.  And those hyperlink-looking things that look like they might take you to the actual context, rather than manually having to try and determine context from people’s comments in the bugzilla notes?  They are actual hyperlinks that do what I just said!


If you are a mailnews hacker and would like to see your review queue in my reviewboard instance, ping me on IRC.  I may have already processed your queue and made you an account, or maybe not.  The review board API does not yet automate user creation and I got tired of doing things manually and gave up.


  • Things go awry on old-school patches.  For example, a patch that thinks it is against (the CVS layout of) “mozilla/mailnews” appears to not work.  The right answer is a patch against “a/mailnews” (I’m not sure if the git-style is essential).  Things worked fine for my queue, but some people with old stuff in their queues experienced glitches.  The script now inserts “problem!” into the summary when this happens, but in my reviewboard instance there may be some reviews that pre-date this logic.  (There should be a note in the description though.  Also, there will obviously be no diff attached.)
  • I initially forgot about the whole review=one person, super-review=another person, and maybe review=yet another person.  Although this is now fixed and reviews target all requested revieweres, there may be some reviews missing from your queue because they were created for one of the dudes who was not you and my manual nuking didn’t get to those.
  • Uh, it creates the reviews, but it doesn’t destroy them.
  • Also uh, there will be scaling issues if the reviews don’t eventually get closed out.