Bug 1761691 - fedpkg refuses to create an override with duration of 31 days
Summary: fedpkg refuses to create an override with duration of 31 days
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED EOL
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: bodhi
Version: 32
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Fedora Infrastructure SIG
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-10-15 05:54 UTC by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Modified: 2021-05-25 15:08 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-05-25 15:08:43 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2019-10-15 05:54:41 UTC
Description of problem:

$ fedpkg override create --duration=31 python-pytest-steps-1.6.2-1.fc31
Expiration date may not be longer than 31
Could not execute create_buildroot_override: Cannot create override.

Rounding error?

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
fedpkg-1.37-5.el8.1.noarch

How reproducible:
The first time I have seen this. Creating the update with --duration=30 works.

Comment 1 Ben Cotton 2020-02-11 17:51:52 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 32 development cycle.
Changing version to 32.

Comment 2 Ondřej Nosek 2021-01-06 00:29:44 UTC
Hello,

I believe that the functionality is placed in another component - bodhi-client or bodhi server. Fedpkg calls a method in bodhi-client with the duration argument and doesn't work with it directly.

~~~~~
fedpkg/__init__.py:
override = bodhi.save_override(nvr=build, duration=duration, notes=notes)
~~~~~

So changing component field and hope the record will end in the right hands.

Comment 3 Kevin Fenzi 2021-01-11 00:52:23 UTC
Yes, this is set in bodhi. The default is:

        'buildroot_limit': {
            'value': 31,

Do you think we should change it to something else?

30 days is already really long...

Comment 4 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2021-01-11 08:13:28 UTC
I opened the bug because of the error message is inconsistent with the rule enforced by the code:
31 is not "longer than 31".

As to the question about what lengths make sense: I think long overrides are useful.
Sometimes it's not clear when the build in the override will go stable. For example,
if I build an override before beta freeze, it might very likely be needed over that
initial period before the freeze and the three weeks of freeze. ~4 weeks gives a 
reasonable chance of the override staying in place for the whole time.

I normally create overrides with the maximum allowed length because it's hard to say
a priori how long they will be needed, and it'd be a hassle to have the override
expire prematurely and have to redo builds.

Comment 5 Kevin Fenzi 2021-01-12 00:31:55 UTC
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #4)
> I opened the bug because of the error message is inconsistent with the rule
> enforced by the code:
> 31 is not "longer than 31".

The code is: 

    days = config.get('buildroot_limit')
    limit = now + timedelta(days=days)
    if expiration_date > limit:
        request.errors.add('body', 'expiration_date',
                           'Expiration date may not be longer than %i' % days)
        return

But can you file that in upstream github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi ? 

> 
> As to the question about what lengths make sense: I think long overrides are
> useful.
> Sometimes it's not clear when the build in the override will go stable. For
> example,
> if I build an override before beta freeze, it might very likely be needed
> over that
> initial period before the freeze and the three weeks of freeze. ~4 weeks
> gives a 
> reasonable chance of the override staying in place for the whole time.
> 
> I normally create overrides with the maximum allowed length because it's
> hard to say
> a priori how long they will be needed, and it'd be a hassle to have the
> override
> expire prematurely and have to redo builds.

ok, fair enough.

Comment 6 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2021-01-19 07:33:14 UTC
https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/4182

Comment 7 Fedora Program Management 2021-04-29 15:58:52 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 32 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 32 on 2021-05-25.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
Fedora 'version' of '32'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 32 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 8 Ben Cotton 2021-05-25 15:08:43 UTC
Fedora 32 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2021-05-25. Fedora 32 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.