Adding Series Dependency to Patchwork

[Adam Hassick]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 1:41 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at amd.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/12/2024 9:15 PM, Adam Hassick wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > We've gotten a review of our initial submission to add the dependency
> > parsing to the Patchwork dashboard. Stephen recommends that we change
> > our format to use the message ID of patches or cover letters rather
> > than the ID of the patch or series in the database. So, instead of
> > adding a dependency by adding "Depends-on: series-5678" one would add
> > "Depends-on: <20240712120000-1-user at example.com>". We can keep the
> > option of using the patchwork web URLs that was discussed in the
> > original issue on GitHub.
> >
>
> I wasn't aware that patchwork has target to abstract/hide the integer
> IDs, in this case since we want to enable this feature in the patchwork,
> it makes sense to follow their path.
> No need to push for integer IDs, that was something we thought as an
> option, it is not crucial for us, we can change it.

Ok, that's good to hear. I can start preparing the v2 patch to switch
over to using the message IDs.

> But there is another thing Stephen mentioned, perhaps using URL instead
> of message ID.
> Even message ID gives more data, it may still require some effort for
> someone investigating the patch to access to that dependent
> patch/series. But using URL gives instant access.
> If using URL doesn't make like harder for the patchwork implementation,
> I am for using URL. From patch developer perspective, I think providing
> message ID or patchwork URL are similar level of hassle.

My current implementation supports the URL format and the current DPDK
format as values for the Depends-on tag. If I switch out the current
DPDK format with the message IDs, then we can support both.

> If we go with the URL option, does is still required to differentiate as
> "patch-xxx" or "series-yyy", previously they were different IDs, but
> with URL can patchwork deduce if it is series or patch? If so this can
> bring a simplification.

No, you can just paste the URL and the Django URL resolver will figure
out whether it points at a patch or a series. No need to differentiate
with the URLs.

That's also true of the message ID option too. There isn't much of a
point in differentiating patch/series message IDs because series do
not reliably have an email associated with them.


> > The main reasoning for this is that our format doesn't make it clear
> > exactly what the dependency is or where it's found outside of the
> > context of Patchwork. This discussion can be viewed here:
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/patchwork/patch/20240617221900.156155-3-ahassick@iol.unh.edu/
> >
> > Does this change sound reasonable?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam
>