We don't want to see the navbar on this page because otherwise it lets
you select branches and click on Stats etc. which doesn't make any sense
in this context.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
We were using the main badge class as a selector here to show the recipe
or maintainer count, and that meant that it also showed up at the top
next to the login button if there were some layers to review. Use a
proper id to stop that from happening.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
When showing the error/warning counts for update records we need to
include any errors/warnings that are shown only in the main update log,
so we need to adjust how these are collected. Use a function rather than
pure aggregation to give a bit more control, and a {% with ... %} block
in the template to avoid the functions being called more than necessary.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Make layerupdate collection slightly more reliable and make it easier
to see when updates have actually been captured:
* Split layerbranch into separate layer and branch fields, since there
may not be a layerbranch in existence but we might want to log an
error relating to the branch and layer.
* Show all layerupdates on the update detail page, not just those with
log messages
* Record before and after revisions and show these in the update detail
and layerupdate detail (with links)
* Record return code of update_layer process
* Highlight layer updates with a non-zero return code, errors or
warnings in the output on the update detail page
* Show duration on the layerupdate detail page
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
On the recipe detail page we provide a link to the actual recipe file
for reference purposes. However, for recipes that include a common .inc
file, many of the definitions of variable values will be inside the
.inc, therefore if you just look at the recipe you won't see the full
picture. Of course you can just go up to the parent directory in the
repository web interface, but for convenience's sake add links to any
files that are included/required by the recipe that are adjacent to
the recipe itself. (We already have the data in the form of the
RecipeFileDependency records that are intended to ensure we know when
the recipe needs to be updated if one of the files it includes changes).
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Specifying the covering recipe in the comparison recipe detail page was
always a bit awkward - you could only type the name, if you wanted to
actually find a recipe or look up the currently selected one's details
then you had to open another browser tab/window. To fix this, replace
the form on the comparison recipe detail page with a side-by-side
display of the covering recipe's information, along with a button that
lets you search and then select the covering recipe and at the same time
enter comments or set any of the other cover fields.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
If we're collecting this useful info we should really display it. Try to
make the link clickable if possible.
At the same time, add the layerbranch to the list display for Source
objects in the admin site.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Comparison updates might involve some custom fetch process, so provide a
mechanism to register these via settings.py on a per-branch basis. If
an update command is defined for a branch and the logged-in user has the
new "update_comparison_branch" permission, an "Update" button will show
up on the recipes page for the comparison branch for authenticated
users that will trigger the command in the background (as a celery job)
and then show a page that displays the status. The status isn't shown in
real-time since that requires quite a lot of plumbing, but the page at
least auto-refreshes.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
If other distro comparison package(s) exist for a recipe being shown in
the RRS recipe detail page, link to the page for each package as well as
any extra URLs.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Add a structure that lets you define a template URL per layer to be
shown per comparison recipe. For example, you could use this to define a
URL template to link to the upstream summary page for the package (e.g.
Fedora's page for the acl package is at
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/acl, so you would use
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/%pn% as the template and then
this would be shown for every package).
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Add the ability to export the comparison search results to CSV format in
order to allow importing the data into external tools.
Note: I implemented this in a different way than the earlier recipe CSV
export, i.e. it uses a template to render the CSV instead of a
function-based view with the Python csv module - the reason for this is
we can reuse the same view as we use for producing the search, with all
of the flexibility that gives us.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
When doing the reversed query it's often desirable to exclude recipes
by inherited class, for example those that inherit the packagegroup,
image and meta classes as they don't actually build anything and thus
aren't going to match up with anything in the other distribution.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Provide a lazy-loaded popup for selecting layers to include in the query
instead of having it as a simple drop-down, so you can select more than
one layer.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Enable "reversing" the comparison, so you can see which recipes on the
OE side match up (or don't) with the other distro. The filtering for
this is a bit awkward, since we don't have an actual foreign key for the
link, hence the hairiness of the code.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Add a flag that can be set and searched for to indicate that we need to
take care of importing a package or a patch applied by a package.
Ideally the comments would elaborate on what's needed (if it's not
obvious from the cover status).
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Turn the existing OE-Classic support into something a bit more
generic so we can import data from other distributions and compare it to
what we have in layers.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
If there are errors we need to close the div or it'll expand to
encompass all of the remaining fields in the form.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Add the ability to show a notice at the top of every page; this provides
the ability for admins to display a message to visitors in the case of
infrastructure or index data issues. Notices can have an expiry date and
can be disabled and re-enabled if needed. A subset of HTML can be used
for formatting the text, URLs will be made into clickable links, and
four "levels" are supported (info, success, warning and error).
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Add the ability to export the recipe listing for a layer to a CSV file
for importing into external tools. At the moment we include name,
version and license, but there is a parameter that lets you specify the
fields to include in the URL if desired.
Implements [YOCTO #12722].
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
We're about to replace this with a proper CSV export function, so we
don't need this dead code hanging around anymore.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Most layers do not track maintenance on a per-recipe basis, and for
those layers we will hide some of the per-recipe maintainer features
and on the recipe detail show the layer maintainer(s) as the
maintainer(s) of the recipe.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
I can't quite tell which Django version broke this, but in any case
based on what's in pagination.html it seems we ought to have been
using == already.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Expose the newly added patch information in the RRS:
* Add a table to the recipe detail listing the patches for the recipe
* Add pending / total counts to the recipe list page
Implements [YOCTO #7909].
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Collect information about patches applied by a recipe, and record each
patch along with the upstream status, presenting them in the recipe
detail.
Implements [YOCTO #7909].
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Upon consideration, for the width of the information we want to present
we do actually want full-width pages for the RRS. When this was changed
earlier in the rrs branch it was changed in the base template, but we
want to keep the same style elsewhere, so put a block in that will let
use the "container-fluid" style (full width) in the RRS pages and
"container" by default everywhere else.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
It's often useful to add a link to another page for more information
when adding a layer note, so turn any included URLs into actual links.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
The Recipe Reporting System needs to be able to provide links to commits
in the web interface for the repository, but we can only do this if we
have a custom template URL just like we do for file/tree links, since
it's different for different git web interfaces. Add support in all the
various places for such a URL and make use of it in the RRS.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
In the rrs branch we used to just store SRC_URI in a field, however we
now have a proper model to store sources, so use that in the RRS recipe
detail page.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
If the RRS is enabled, then add a link to it in the tools menu. I don't
expect this to be used a lot, but otherwise the only way you'd get there
would be either externally or via the link from the layer detail.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Add a convenience link to the layer detail to the breadcrumb (also as an
indicator, since it's possible to have more than one layer in the
maintenance plan).
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
The old RRS branch had its own addition of dependency support, but in the
mean time we added that to the layer index in the master branch using a
different structure. Adapt the RRS recipe detail page to that structure.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
If the RRS is enabled, then add a way to get from the layer detail page
to any maintenance plans in which the layer is included.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
* Use maintenance plans to get layerbranches
* Use from/to/subject and admin contact from maintenance plan
* Use an actual template to render the email (and drop tabulate
dependency)
* Improve grammar in the email text
* Use a single line to represent the most recent commit
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
The url template function resolve an URL associated with a model, so
in Django 1.6 quotes around variables don't get the variable value.
Signed-off-by: Aníbal Limón <anibal.limon@linux.intel.com>
Currently the recipes table always shows the 'Upstream version' column.
However, for recipes up-to-date, this column is irrelevant, since for such
recipes 'version' always equals 'upstream version'.
Since the vast majority of the recipes are up-to-date, when you are
showing all the recipes the 'upstream version' column is also pretty
useless.
The column is only really relevant when you are looking at recipes
with status 'not updated' or 'can't be updated'. I would have thought
there would be nothing to show in the 'Upstream version' column for
recipes with status 'Unknown', but it turns out some of those do have
an upstream version value, that I thought might be useful to the
maintainer somehow.
So, this patch hides the 'Upstream version' column whenever you are
looking at all the recipes or up-to-date recipes; and shows it when
you select any of the other recipe statuses
Signed-off-by: Belen Barros Pena <belen.barros.pena@intel.com>
Now when search something the URL is modified and you can
share the URL for access to the data.
[YOCTO #7809]
Signed-off-by: Aníbal Limón <anibal.limon@linux.intel.com>
This provides changes in the front end for the
navbar, now it shows the percentage of recipes
up-to-date, not update, unknown and can't be
updated along with the number of recipes.
This also moves the update percentage to the
end and adds clarity to what it means.
This also moves the export list button the the
top bar.
[YOCTO #8020]
Signed-off-by: Mariano Lopez <mariano.lopez@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Aníbal Limón <anibal.limon@linux.intel.com>
Currently, when you select 'Can't be updated' in the upstream
status filter, the resulting table will add the 'No update reason'
column to the default column set.
Although this is probably useful information to see in the
table itself, it results in too many columns, and a rather
unpleasant layout change.
This patch hides the 'Summary' column whenever you select
'Can't be updated' in the upstream status filter, effectively
replacing the 'Summary' with the 'No update reason' column,
which is probably more relevant in this context. Now you
have less columns distracting you, and a slightly less
jumpy layout change.
A designer would have come up with this solution in the
first place. Sadly, she was never asked.
Signed-off-by: Belen Barros Pena <belen.barros.pena@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Aníbal Limón <anibal.limon@linux.intel.com>
Nothing useful can come from sorting by this column.
Signed-off-by: Belen Barros Pena <belen.barros.pena@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Aníbal Limón <anibal.limon@linux.intel.com>
