A typical manual branch build use-case

Note: the following mockups do not try to fit the current implementation of bzr builder recipes or the corresponding current LP models.

Initiating a build with an existing recipe

Guilherme has his own branch of the Toggle project that fixes a bug and would like to build and publish the resulting package in his PPA.

While viewing his branch, Guilherme:

1. Clicks on the "Build this branch" link, (MOCKUP REQUIRED)
2. A "Build this branch to a PPA" overlay appears displaying a selection for his target PPA and someone elses recipe that has been created to build toggle branches (shown below). Guilherme selects his target PPA where he wants the package to be published. By default, the recipe selector is displaying "toggle_std_pkging by Toggle Dev Team" and the displayed recipe description states "This is the default recipe for building Toggle. It merges the official packaging branch only." The description also informs him that the recipe targets Lucid and 9.10. Guilherme realises that it's exactly what he wants and simply clicks "Build now".

3. The overlay disappears and the branch page is updated with a "Recent builds" portlet listing the new build and its status (MOCKUP REQUIRED), linking to (somewhere appropriate within) the PPA.

Initiating a build requiring a new recipe

Guilherme has his own branch of the Toggle project that fixes a bug and would like to build and publish the resulting package in his PPA.

While viewing his branch page, Guilherme:

1. Clicks on the "Build this branch" link, (MOCKUP REQUIRED),
2. A "Build this branch to a PPA" overlay appears displaying a selection for his target PPA and someone elses recipe that has been created to build toggle branches (shown below). Guilherme selects his target PPA where he wants the package to be published, and then reads the recipe description and realises straight away that it's not what he wants. He clicks on the recipe selector and selects the only other option. He reads the description of this second recipe, realises it's also not something he can re-user, and so clicks on the "Create a new recipe" link.

3. The overlay transitions (fade in/out) to a "Create a build recipe for Toggle" overlay (shown below). Guilherme enters a useful name and description for his new recipe, selects his packaging branch and clicks save.

4. The overlay transitions back to the previous "Build this branch to a PPA" dialog, with his new recipe already selected. Guilherme clicks 'Build now'.
5. The overlay disappears and the branch page is updated with a "Recent builds" portlet listing the new build and its status, linking to (somewhere appropriate within) the PPA.

Initiating a build for a specific branch version or target distro series

A week later, Guilherme needs to create and publish a specific version of his branch into a separate PPA. While viewing his branch, Guilherme:

1. Clicks on the "Build this branch" link, (MOCKUP REQUIRED)
2. A "Build this branch to a PPA" overlay appears displaying a selection for his target PPA and someone elses recipe that has been created to build toggle branches (shown below). Guilherme selects his target PPA where he wants the package to be published. By default, the recipe selector is displaying "toggle_std_pkging by Toggle Dev Team" and the displayed recipe description states "This is the default recipe for building Toggle. It merges the official packaging branch only." The description also informs him that the recipe targets Lucid and 9.10. Guilherme realises that it's exactly what he wants - but he'd like to select a specific version of his branch, so he clicks on the "Build options" expander:

3. Guilherme selects the specific revision that he needs, and clicks "Build now"
4. The overlay disappears and the branch page is updated with a "Recent builds" portlet listing the new build and its status, linking to (somewhere appropriate within) the PPA.

Notes for graceful degradation - Non-JS version

NOTE: the following non-js mockups are out of date. Without JavaScript, the "Build now" link would go to a "/+buildbranch" page for the branch:

allowing Guilherme to select a recipe and indicate the ppa. If there weren't any recipes, or he wanted to create a new one, he can click on 'create a new recipe' which takes him to:

Once Guilherme successfully creates a new recipe he is redirected back to the +build page above.

Actually, an alternative here (given that it is all for the non-JS version) would be to combine the two pages into one (nope, that ui is getting too complicated, and it's just for the non-js version, better to keep it as two simpler pages).

See also

• BuildBranchToArchiveUI/UseCaseDailyBuild

Unresolved questions

• Regarding the build options: does it make sense to have a branch revision *and* Build daily as an option at the same time?

  • It is conceivably possible that someone might want a daily build of a fixed base-branch revision because the merged feature branch or packaging branch etc. is what is being tested, but I've no idea whether this is realistic. If not (or even if so) we can simply warn the user when they click Build daily if they have selected a version.

  • Spoke with James - agreed it's possible (although not normal), so warning is a good solution.

• What actually happens when I click 'Build daily'? Obviously it'll be scheduled to run daily, but will the first build happen straight away? How do I know?
• Would we want to ensure that users can actually choose the daily build time for a daily build? (ie. it may be desired that the build happens at 3am local time for a group so the next morning they all get the update?).
• Initially we may not even want the 'Build daily' option to be available to general users (due to resources), instead enabling daily builds via a separate interface?

  • We could ensure on this interface that it is only present/valid for certain groups etc. too?

• Should all recipes be available for selection in the dropdown, or just 'official' ones (ones owned by members of the project team?), or both but segregated in the dropdown (ie. official first, then community).

  • We should include membership in Ubuntu devs for some sort of 'official' recipe status.

• With the revision specification, perhaps it should be a radio button with Tip selected by default, but the second radio would enable a text box. It'd be nice to also have a dropdown with recent revisions (with commit msgs!?) without crowding the interface.

Mockups that are missing, maybe:

• A page for a build
  • Failed
  • Successful
  • How does it use the manifest?
• A page for a daily build (is this the same as the page for a recipe)
  • Most recent builds
  • When building next?
  • Stop building this for now / resume
  • What has changed on the branches since the most recent build?

Unaddressed use-cases:

• As a gnome-do enthusiast, I want to install the daily build for "gnome-do" so I can use the latest crack.

  • I think the question here is how do I *find* the gnome-do daily PPA right?

• Should we have a page that represents a recipe? If so what would it be for & what would it look like?

  • Definitely - I mean, we want people to be able to edit the recipe. I assume it would look very similar to the recipe creation overlay above, but include more auxiliary info like builds that have been done with the recipe etc.

Resolved questions

• James says, from a technical pov, we don't need the source package name field at all, and in fact, it can't be used for anything useful. James will actually remove the --package option from bzr dailydeb, as it's not even required when there's no changelog entry, as it must be present in the control file.

  • Removing from the mockups. Although we still then need a discussion around the recipe traversal URL, as the last time this was discussed they were to be traversed via the SPName, which LP won't currently have access to even though it is data in one of the branches referenced by the recipe and (currently) we will have that data once the source package is uploaded.

• What is a general rule that can/should be used for deciding what's in a recipe and what's external?

  • Anything which is to do with the inputs to the recipe (ie. what goes together to make the source package) should be inside the recipe. But what you do with the result (ie. which distroseries etc.) should be external.

  • The version template is not clear, as it's useful as a default on the recipe, but useful as an override for users too.

• Is it worthwhile having a structured advanced recipe options? (ie. instead of a text area for the advanced options, allowing users to select a branch, command (merge/nest), and reference, version etc.)

  • That could end up being more complicated than advanced users using a text area, considering nesting of instructions etc.