Is it possible to find all untagged commits since the latest release using Github API?
First, you can get the latest release with the GitHub API (which matches the matest tag)
GET /repos/:owner/:repo/releases/latest
That means you can then compare two commits:
GET /repos/:owner/:repo/compare/:base...:head
For example: https://api.github.com/repos/git-for-windows/git/compare/v2.4.5.windows.1...master
Notes:
See Working with large comparisons:
The response will include a comparison of up to 250 commits.
If you are working with a larger commit range, you can use the Commit List API to enumerate all commits in the range.
This assume your release was done on the master branch (but you can create a release on another branch)
Related
I would like to know the number of commit per user-account in a year.
github provides the following api.
GET /repos/:owner/:repo/stats/commit_activity
But what I want is not the number of commit in the repository.
I think i can add after getting the number of commit for all the repository, but I think it's very inefficient.(Also, if the number of repertoires is large, unnecessary GET request is increased.)
Can I know the number of commit per a year for all the repositories of an user-account at just a one GET request?
I found many ways to compare two commits/branches/tags, but I can't find a way to compare all commits in branch.
Suppose we have only branch master with 4 commits
example
We can easily compare all commits except first one in that or
that way
But none of these include changes from 'empty repository' state.
How could I do that?
Is there any way to find PRs in github by it's merge date? Actually the PRs that were merged in the range of the dates.
Didn't find any and it feels weird, so asking the community.
Thanks
There does not seem to be a way to query by date, by "merge_at" field date on a PR using the PR GitHub API.
You can see how a script like file-suggest_backports-py-L333 (python) does it in order to get and sort PR by date.
# Now get all PRs and filter by whether or not they belong to the
# milestone; requesting them all at once is still faster than
# requesting one at a time. This would also be easier if the API
# supported sorting on PR lists
for pr in self.iter_pull_requests(state='closed'):
if (pr['number'] not in milestone_issues or not pr['merged_at']):
continue
merge_commit = self.get_pull_request_merge_commit(pr['number'])
# Ignore commits that were merged before the last tag date
if merge_commit['commit']['committer']['date'] < last_tag_date:
continue
if not self.find_merged_commit(merge_commit,
since=last_tag_date):
yield pr, merge_commit['sha']
But in short, you need to script it:
find the right branches (like the one already merged into master, either because they were merged, or because they have no commit: see "How can I know in git if a branch has been already merged into master?")
delete them both in your local repo and remotely. See "How to delete a Git branch both locally and remotely?"
You can also use github website to do the search by merge time according to the docs: https://docs.github.com/en/search-github/searching-on-github/searching-issues-and-pull-requests#search-by-when-a-pull-request-was-merged
You can filter pull requests based on when they were merged, using the merged qualifier.
This qualifier takes a date as its parameter. Date formatting must follow the ISO8601 standard, which is YYYY-MM-DD (year-month-day). You can also add optional time information THH:MM:SS+00:00 after the date, to search by the hour, minute, and second. That's T, followed by HH:MM:SS (hour-minutes-seconds), and a UTC offset (+00:00).
with an example as follows:
language:javascript merged:<2011-01-01 matches pull requests in JavaScript repositories that were merged before 2011.
We are trying to migrate from Subversion to Mercurial but we are encountering some problems. First a bit of background:
Desired workflow:
We would like to have just two named branches, stable and default, within one repository.
Development takes place on default branch.
Bug fixes are committed to stable branch and merged to default.
After every Sprint we tag our default branch.
Eventually we can release a new version, for which we bring some code (possibly the latest Sprint tag) from default over to stable (update stable, merge Sprint_xyz), tag the branch (tag Release_xyz) and release.
We also want the following jobs on our Jenkins build server for CI:
End-of-Sprint job: This job should tag default with something like Sprint_xyz
Release job: This job should bring the latest "Sprint" tag changes over to the stable branch, then tag stable with something like Release_6.0.0 and build a release.
Some more background:
Mercurial is new to us, but for what we have seen, this seems like a sane approach. We chose tags to mark releases over named-branches and cloned-branches trying to make the development workflow as straightforward as possible (single merge step, single checkout, only a couple of branches to keep track of...).
We use scrum and potentially (but not necessarily) release a version after each sprint which may (or not) become part of the stable branch and turn into a "shipable" release.
The problem we are encountering (and which is making us wonder if we are approaching this the right way...) is the following:
We work on the default branch ('d' on the poor-man's-graph that follow):
d -o-o-o-o-
We finish a sprint and trigger an End-of-Sprint job (using Jenkins) which tags default with "Sprint 1":
d -o-o-o-o-o-
|
Sprint 1
To release Sprint 1 we update to stable branch ('s') and merge changes from the Sprint 1 tag revision and commit:
Sprint 1
|
d -o-o-o-o-o-
\
s -o-o-o-o-o-o-
Tag stable and commit:
Sprint 1
|
d -o-o-o-o-o-
\
s -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
|
Release 1
Update to default and merge stable since default should stay a superset of stable, commit and push:
Sprint 1
|
d -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
\ /
s -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
|
Release 1
The problem is that when merging .hgtags from 's' to 'd' mercurial encounters a conflict which holds the release job from completing. The resulting .hgtags should contain information from both involved tags.
We have searched for a solution to this, and could probably automate these type of merge conflicts with some hooks and scripts, but it looks like an unnecessary and error-prone hack to support a workflow that otherwise seems nothing out of the ordinary.
Is there something inherently wrong with our approach that causes us to encounter these problems?
If not, what is the best way to solve these issues without having to rely on a scripts/hooks approach?
Is there a better approach that would support our workflow?
I would go for the special case hooks. The problem you're seeing is related to the Mercurial philosophy of versioning metadata in the same way as normal repository data. This is simple and effective, and leads to a system that's overall easier to understand. But in this case it also leads to your merge conflict.
The reason it leads to a merge conflict is relatively simple. The .hgtags file is just a text file with a bunch of lines in it. Each line contains a hash and the associated tag. In one branch you've added the Sprint 1 tag. In another branch you've added the Release 1 tag. These show up as one line being added to the end of the file in one branch, and a different line being added to the end of the file in another branch.
Then you merge the two branches. Suddenly Mercurial is faced with a decision. Which line should it take? Should it take both of them? If it were source code, there would really be no way to tell without human intervention.
But it isn't source code. It's a bunch of tags. The rule should be 'if the two lines being added refer to different tags, just take both of them'. But it isn't because Mercurial is treating it like a bog-standard text file that could be important source code.
Really, the .hgtags file should be handled in a fairly special way for merges. And it might actually be good to add code that handles it that way into mainline Mercurial to support your use-case.
IMHO Mercurial should be modified so that the .hgtags file would only give you a conflict warning if you have two different hashes for the same tag. The other weird case would be if you have a tag with a hash that isn't an ancestor of the change in which the tag appears. That case should be called out somehow when doing a merge, but it isn't really a conflict.
I suspect you're merging the tagged changeset from default to stable. If you merge the tagging changeset instead, you shouldn't get the merge conflict when you merge the second (probably also tagging!) changeset back to default.
My project uses hgext.notify. Currently incoming.notify = separate messages on every changeset. Considering changegroup notify, but even that contains info about every changeset, just all in one big email.
Here's the problem:
My work style is "check in early and often". I make many small checkins, usually on branches. Task branches. Eventually integrated.
My teammates do not like seeing messages for all of my checkins on my task branches.
We are considering using a history editing extension like collapse or histedit to reduce the verbosity - but I dislike losing history. I just want not to bother them with every individual changeset.
Q: is there a way, some configuration for an existing hook, or some alternate hg extension, that can be set up to do notifies as folllws;
a single message per changegroup (that's okay)
a single user provided message per changegroup - not just concatenation of all the branch changeset messages
filter out only the changest messages for, say, the trunk (the default branch in hg parlance). I.e. leave the branch changeset messages in, but don't send email.
(Note: my pushes typically involve several changesets on a branch, and then a merge onto default. So it is not enough to just filter the entire changegroup in or out according to what branches are affected.)
diffstats not between the tip and every changest on the branch, but just between "important" changesets on the trunk (default branch) - which may be evety changest on the trunk.
I'm afraid no such extension exists. The notify extension is just a basic way to send off emails with a little room for customization.
It sounds like you have a particular idea about what you want. I suggest you see if you can formulate it as a revision set and then simply use hg log in a changegroup hook. Pipe the output to mail and you've got yourself a very simple notify extension that you can customize to your hearts content!
What I'm saying is that the notify extension is not that complex and in many cases it can be replaced by a suitable invocation of hg log. You can even use a custom template for hg log if you want to change the output more than what hg log -v or hg log --patch does.
The tricky part (and the part that's not entirely clear from your question) is to filter out exactly the right changesets. You mention "important" changesets in point 4 above, but I'm not entirely sure what makes a changeset "important". If it is important when it's a merge from a feature branch into default, then something like this might be a start:
hg log -r "$HG_NODE:tip and children(not branch(default)) and branch(default)"
By taking the child changesets of the non-default changesets and intersecting with changesets on the default, we get exactly the merge points where feature branches were integrated.
I'm sorry the answer is so generic, but I think you're best off with writing a small custom shell script for what you want.