Skip to content
Projects
Groups
Snippets
Help
Loading...
Help
Support
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Submit feedback
Contribute to GitLab
Sign in / Register
Toggle navigation
G
gitlab-ce
Project overview
Project overview
Details
Activity
Releases
Repository
Repository
Files
Commits
Branches
Tags
Contributors
Graph
Compare
Issues
0
Issues
0
List
Boards
Labels
Milestones
Merge Requests
0
Merge Requests
0
Analytics
Analytics
Repository
Value Stream
Wiki
Wiki
Snippets
Snippets
Members
Members
Collapse sidebar
Close sidebar
Activity
Graph
Create a new issue
Commits
Issue Boards
Open sidebar
Léo-Paul Géneau
gitlab-ce
Commits
25c9c8ce
Commit
25c9c8ce
authored
Nov 16, 2016
by
Rémy Coutable
Browse files
Options
Browse Files
Download
Email Patches
Plain Diff
Document the `rake ee_compat_check` task
Signed-off-by:
Rémy Coutable
<
remy@rymai.me
>
parent
95d552b8
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
with
85 additions
and
59 deletions
+85
-59
doc/development/limit_ee_conflicts.md
doc/development/limit_ee_conflicts.md
+85
-59
No files found.
doc/development/limit_ee_conflicts.md
View file @
25c9c8ce
...
@@ -8,75 +8,54 @@ Usually, GitLab Community Edition is merged into the Enterprise Edition once a
...
@@ -8,75 +8,54 @@ Usually, GitLab Community Edition is merged into the Enterprise Edition once a
week. During these merges, it's very common to get conflicts when some changes
week. During these merges, it's very common to get conflicts when some changes
in CE do not apply cleanly to EE.
in CE do not apply cleanly to EE.
In this document, we will list the best practices to avoid such conflicts or to
There are a few things that can help you as a developer to:
make them easily solvable by the person who does the CE->EE merge.
## Different type of conflicts
-
know when your merge request to CE will conflict when merged to EE
-
avoid such conflicts in the first place
-
ease future conflict resolutions if conflict is inevitable
##
# Model
s
##
Check the `rake ee_compat_check` in your merge request
s
#### Common issues
For each commit (except on
`master`
), the
`rake ee_compat_check`
CI job tries to
detect if the current branch's changes will conflict during the CE->EE merge.
TODO
The job reports what files are conflicting and how to setup a merge request
against EE. Here is roughly how it works:
#### Mitigations
1.
Generates the diff between your branch and current CE
`master`
1.
Tries to apply it to current EE
`master`
1.
If it applies cleanly, the job succeeds, otherwise...
1.
Detects a branch with the
`-ee`
suffix in EE
1.
If it exists, generate the diff between this branch and current EE
`master`
1.
Tries to apply it to current EE
`master`
1.
If it applies cleanly, the job succeeds
TODO
In the case where the job fails, it means you should create a
`<ce_branch>-ee`
branch, push it to EE and open a merge request against EE
`master`
. At this
point if you retry the failing job in your CE merge request, it should now pass.
### Services
Notes:
#### Common issues
-
This task is not a silver-bullet, its current goal is to bring awareness to
developers that their work needs to be ported to EE.
-
Community contributors shouldn't submit merge requests against EE, but
reviewers should take actions by either creating such EE merge request or
asking a GitLab developer to do it once the merge request is merged.
-
If you branch is more than 500 commits behind
`master`
, the job will fail and
you should rebase your branch upon latest
`master`
.
TODO
## Possible type of conflicts
#### Mitigations
TODO
### Controllers
### Controllers
####
Common issues
####
List or arrays are augmented in EE
In controllers, the most common type of conflicts is either in a
`before_action`
In controllers, the most common type of conflicts is either in a
`before_action`
that has a list of actions in CE but EE adds some actions to that list.
that has a list of actions in CE but EE adds some actions to that list.
Same problems often occurs for
`params.require`
/
`params.permit`
calls.
Same problems often occurs for
`params.require`
/
`params.permit`
calls.
Other conflicts usually involve specific code for EE-specific features such as:
##### Mitigations
-
LDAP:
```
diff
def destroy
@key = current_user.keys.find(params[:id])
- @key.destroy
+ @key.destroy unless @key.is_a? LDAPKey
respond_to do |format|
```
-
Geo:
```
diff
def after_sign_out_path_for(resource)
- current_application_settings.after_sign_out_path.presence || new_user_session_path
+ if Gitlab::Geo.secondary?
+ Gitlab::Geo.primary_node.oauth_logout_url(@geo_logout_state)
+ else
+ current_application_settings.after_sign_out_path.presence || new_user_session_path
+ end
end
```
-
Audit log:
```
diff
def approve_access_request
- Members::ApproveAccessRequestService.new(membershipable, current_user, params).execute
+ member = Members::ApproveAccessRequestService.new(membershipable, current_user, params).execute
+
+ log_audit_event(member, action: :create)
redirect_to polymorphic_url([membershipable, :members])
end
```
#### Mitigations
Separate CE and EE actions/keywords. For instance for
`params.require`
in
Separate CE and EE actions/keywords. For instance for
`params.require`
in
`ProjectsController`
:
`ProjectsController`
:
...
@@ -109,20 +88,56 @@ def project_params_ee
...
@@ -109,20 +88,56 @@ def project_params_ee
end
end
```
```
### Views
#### Additional condition(s) in EE
For instance for LDAP:
```
diff
def destroy
@key = current_user.keys.find(params[:id])
- @key.destroy
+ @key.destroy unless @key.is_a? LDAPKey
respond_to do |format|
```
Or for Geo:
#### Common issues
```
diff
def after_sign_out_path_for(resource)
- current_application_settings.after_sign_out_path.presence || new_user_session_path
+ if Gitlab::Geo.secondary?
+ Gitlab::Geo.primary_node.oauth_logout_url(@geo_logout_state)
+ else
+ current_application_settings.after_sign_out_path.presence || new_user_session_path
+ end
end
```
A few issues often happen here
:
Or even for audit log
:
1.
Indentation issue
```
diff
1.
A block of code added in CE conflicts because there is already another block
def approve_access_request
at the same place in EE
- Members::ApproveAccessRequestService.new(membershipable, current_user, params).execute
+ member = Members::ApproveAccessRequestService.new(membershipable, current_user, params).execute
+
+ log_audit_event(member, action: :create)
#### Mitigations
redirect_to polymorphic_url([membershipable, :members])
end
```
### Views
#### Additional view code in EE
A block of code added in CE conflicts because there is already another block
at the same place in EE
##### Mitigations
Blocks of code that are EE-specific should be moved to partials as much as
Blocks of code that are EE-specific should be moved to partials as much as
possible to avoid conflicts with big chunks of HAML code that that are not fun
ny
possible to avoid conflicts with big chunks of HAML code that that are not fun
to resolve when you add the indentation in the equation.
to resolve when you add the indentation in the equation.
For instance this kind of things:
For instance this kind of things:
...
@@ -242,6 +257,17 @@ level
...
@@ -242,6 +257,17 @@ level
are encouraged to use partials even for code that's in CE to logically split
are encouraged to use partials even for code that's in CE to logically split
big views into several smaller files.
big views into several smaller files.
#### Indentation issue
Sometimes a code block is indented more or less in EE because there's an
additional condition.
##### Mitigations
Blocks of code that are EE-specific should be moved to partials as much as
possible to avoid conflicts with big chunks of HAML code that that are not fun
to resolve when you add the indentation in the equation.
---
---
[
Return to Development documentation
](
README.md
)
[
Return to Development documentation
](
README.md
)
Write
Preview
Markdown
is supported
0%
Try again
or
attach a new file
Attach a file
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment