#1068 the %copr_username isn't defined on copr builders
Merged 11 months ago by frostyx. Opened a year ago by schlupov.
copr/ schlupov/copr define_copr_username  into  master

@@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ 

          self.resultdir = resultdir

          self.config = config

          self.logfile = self.config.get("main", "logfile")

+         self.copr_username = task.get("project_owner")

+         self.copr_projectname = task.get("project_name")

  

      def run(self):

          open(self.logfile, 'w').close() # truncate logfile

@@ -66,7 +68,8 @@ 

          template = jinja_env.get_template("mock.cfg.j2")

          return template.render(chroot=self.chroot, task_id=self.task_id, buildroot_pkgs=self.buildroot_pkgs,

                                 enable_net=self.enable_net, use_bootstrap_container=self.use_bootstrap_container,

-                                repos=self.repos, pkg_manager_conf=self.pkg_manager_conf)

+                                repos=self.repos, pkg_manager_conf=self.pkg_manager_conf,

+                                copr_username=self.copr_username, copr_projectname=self.copr_projectname)

  

      def produce_srpm(self, spec, sources, configdir, resultdir):

          cmd = MOCK_CALL + [

file modified
+2

@@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ 

  config_opts['use_host_resolv'] = False

  {% endif %}

  

+ config_opts['macros']['%copr_username'] = '{{ copr_username }}'

+ config_opts['macros']['%copr_projectname'] = '{{ copr_projectname }}'

  config_opts['use_bootstrap_container'] = {{ 'True' if use_bootstrap_container else 'False' }}

  

  {% if use_bootstrap_container %}

file modified
+4 -1

@@ -68,7 +68,8 @@ 

          # This is how mock itself does it

          def include(*args, **kwargs):

              pass

-         config_opts = {"yum.conf": []}

+ 

+         config_opts = {"macros": {"%copr_username": "@copr", "%copr_projectname": "copr-dev"}, "yum.conf": []}

          cfg = re.sub(r'include\((.*)\)', r'include(\g<1>, config_opts, True)', cfg)

          code = compile(cfg, "/tmp/foobar", 'exec')

          exec(code)

@@ -77,6 +78,8 @@ 

          self.assertEqual(config_opts["chroot_additional_packages"], "pkg1 pkg2 pkg3")

          self.assertEqual(config_opts["rpmbuild_networking"], True)

          self.assertEqual(config_opts["use_bootstrap_container"], False)

+         self.assertEqual(config_opts["macros"]["%copr_username"], "@copr")

+         self.assertEqual(config_opts["macros"]["%copr_projectname"], "copr-dev")

          self.assertEqual(config_opts["yum.conf"], [])

  

      @mock.patch("copr_rpmbuild.builders.mock.get_mock_uniqueext")

Fixes: #1037

Project_owner can be also a group.

This is compat thing; we used to define this before. But could you please also define %copr_owner (this better aligns with current copr code) and also %copr_project?

Or dunno, maybe %copr_project_owner and %copr_project_name.

Do you remember whether the %copr_username used to be in fact username or whether it was owner name? And also, would people care if the value changed to just username? I am asking because I am not sure whether you are suggesting to have the same value of %copr_username and %copr_ownername macros, or not.

See https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/backend/get-build-task/1052939-fedora-30-i386
I now use project_owner value for the macro %copr_username so if I add %copr_project_owner it will both have the same value.

I don't remember :-/ it should be easy to find ... IOW so yes, I thought that both should have the same value... if they are present. OTOH, I am not 100% sure we have to keep the compatibility layer with something which doesn't work for year or two now; ... so perhaps we can only have two new macros, one for owner and second for project name?

As I understand it, people don't even care what the value is. They basically need a boolean value "Am I building in the Copr or nah?", i.e. they care whether the macro is defined. Right? If this is the case, I would create the new proposed macros, and set %copr_username to username (not group name). Maybe username of the submitter?

Submitter is not always known..., we only know owner and project name 100%. Otherwise I'm fine with what you propose.

rebased onto 15ab1edc6087012b2650bdbfcd9d17e20016984f

11 months ago

I added the %project_name macro and I left the %copr_username as it was. So now we have two macros for the owner and for the project name.

rebased onto 9c8d3354414ccf1af5e048566b7fe196f1d3e9ba

11 months ago

rebased onto 460eae6

11 months ago

Pull-Request has been merged by frostyx

11 months ago

I only miss the ownername.. that would better suit group vs. user projects.