quality/blockerbugs
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 35 Pull requests 4 Projects 1 Releases Packages Activity Actions

Switch from Pagure to Forge for blocker review discussions #296

New issue
Open
opened 2026-01-20 13:26:09 +00:00 by kparal · 6 comments
kparal commented 2026-01-20 13:26:09 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Currently we support only Pagure for doing async blocker review discussions. For production, we use the blocker-review repo.

Since we're migrating from Pagure to Forge, we would need a change in blockerbugs that would drop Pagure support and introduce Forge support for blocker discussions.

This means:
a) implementing reading, creating and editing a Forge ticket through its API
b) figuring out how to get notified when a Forge ticket is updated (in Pagure, we do this through a webhook)
c) figuring out authentication with Forge, and testing for privileged members
d) fixing ticket formatting if needed

Don't forget that most of the changes can be tested through staging instances - https://stg.pagure.io , https://bugzilla.stage.redhat.com and https://forge.stg.fedoraproject.org .

Currently we support only Pagure for doing async blocker review discussions. For production, we use the [blocker-review](https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review) repo. Since we're migrating from Pagure to Forge, we would need a change in blockerbugs that would drop Pagure support and introduce Forge support for blocker discussions. This means: a) implementing reading, creating and editing a Forge ticket through its API b) figuring out how to get notified when a Forge ticket is updated (in Pagure, we do this through a webhook) c) figuring out authentication with Forge, and testing for privileged members d) fixing ticket formatting if needed Don't forget that most of the changes can be tested through staging instances - https://stg.pagure.io , https://bugzilla.stage.redhat.com and https://forge.stg.fedoraproject.org .
kparal added this to the Next tasks project 2026-01-20 13:26:10 +00:00
kparal modified the project from Next tasks to Sprint 2 2026-01-23 08:06:57 +00:00
jgroman added reference fix/296-blocker-review-voting-on-forge 2026-01-27 09:06:34 +00:00
kparal modified the project from Sprint 2 to Sprint 3 2026-02-10 15:00:56 +00:00
jgroman commented 2026-02-10 16:53:27 +00:00
Owner
Copy link
  • The code currently lives in branch fix/296-blocker-review-voting-on-forge
  • Forge bot is configured using new constants with FORGEJO_ prefix in config.py, there is also new DISCUSSION_SYSTEM option, which needs to be changed from "pagure" to "forgejo"
  • Users currently get authorized to vote by being members of the team set in FORGEJO_ADMIN_TEAM (unfortunate name, needs refactoring :) )
- The code currently lives in branch `fix/296-blocker-review-voting-on-forge` - Forge bot is configured using new constants with `FORGEJO_` prefix in `config.py`, there is also new `DISCUSSION_SYSTEM` option, which needs to be changed from "pagure" to "forgejo" - Users currently get authorized to vote by being members of the team set in `FORGEJO_ADMIN_TEAM` (unfortunate name, needs refactoring :) )
adamwill modified the project from Sprint 3 to Sprint 4 2026-02-24 16:31:55 +00:00
jgroman modified the project from Sprint 4 to Sprint 5 2026-03-10 12:27:26 +00:00
kparal commented 2026-03-10 14:10:57 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Some thoughts during my quick inspection today:

  • Pagure support is still kept in (and it involves some overhead code to differentiate between the two systems), do you have a preference? I'd either drop Pagure immediately, or (in case we want to play defensive), after a few weeks once Forgejo integration is verified to work in production. The latter is of course safer, but given that we'll likely push this to production after F44 cycle, we won't have many tickets to validate this with for the next 3-4 months, so I'm not sure if that helps us at all 🙂 I currently lean a bit towards just nuking Pagure immediately, which will make the new code simpler (including CLI commands). What about you?

Also, let's create a PR so that I can put some direct comments on particular lines?

Some thoughts during my quick inspection today: * Pagure support is still kept in (and it involves some overhead code to differentiate between the two systems), do you have a preference? I'd either drop Pagure immediately, or (in case we want to play defensive), after a few weeks once Forgejo integration is verified to work in production. The latter is of course safer, but given that we'll likely push this to production after F44 cycle, we won't have many tickets to validate this with for the next 3-4 months, so I'm not sure if that helps us at all 🙂 I currently lean a bit towards just nuking Pagure immediately, which will make the new code simpler (including CLI commands). What about you? Also, let's create a PR so that I can put some direct comments on particular lines?
jgroman commented 2026-03-10 14:36:26 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

I was just playing it safe and keeping backwards compatibility with Pagure just in case. If that is not really required we can remove Pagure specific code for sure.
Let's create PR after possible Actions upgrade is evaluated (#298) since that would change required code considerably.

I was just playing it safe and keeping backwards compatibility with Pagure just in case. If that is not really required we can remove Pagure specific code for sure. Let's create PR after possible Actions upgrade is evaluated (https://forge.fedoraproject.org/quality/blockerbugs/issues/298) since that would change required code considerably.
kparal commented 2026-03-10 14:57:17 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Let's create PR after possible Actions upgrade is evaluated (#298) since that would change required code considerably.

I wouldn't delay this with that ticket. It might take a long time to evaluate it and it might be a complete rewrite of the process. We can be much quicker if we finalize this and push to production, because you have it almost all written already, as it seems. We can consider #298 as a possible future improvement.

> Let's create PR after possible Actions upgrade is evaluated (#298) since that would change required code considerably. I wouldn't delay this with that ticket. It might take a long time to evaluate it and it might be a complete rewrite of the process. We can be much quicker if we finalize this and push to production, because you have it almost all written already, as it seems. We can consider #298 as a possible future improvement.
👍 1
kparal commented 2026-03-10 17:27:11 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

In our today's team call, we agreed that it makes no sense to carry forward Pagure integration as well. Jaroslav, could you please adjust the PR to drop Pagure support? It should make some code paths simpler. Thanks!

In our today's team call, we agreed that it makes no sense to carry forward Pagure integration as well. Jaroslav, could you please adjust the PR to drop Pagure support? It should make some code paths simpler. Thanks!
👍 1
jgroman commented 2026-03-11 08:06:37 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Ack, will do.

Ack, will do.
Sign in to join this conversation.
fix/296-blocker-review-voting-on-forge
Branches Tags
Clear current reference
develop
fix/296-blocker-review-voting-on-forge
tox-ci-ai
staging
master
oidc_prep
discussion_link_bz
feature/sync_in_admin_ui
flask_middleware_oc
feature/bugdeps2
kparal/selfref
Clear current reference
1.14
1.13
1.12
1.11
1.10
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6.1
1.6
1.5
1.4.1
1.4.0
1.3.1
1.3.0
1.2.1
1.2.0
1.1.0
1.0.0
0.7.4
0.7.3
0.7.2
0.7.1
0.7.0
0.6.1
0.6.0
0.5.0
0.4.15
0.4.14
0.4.13
0.4.12
0.4.4.11-1
0.4.4.11
0.4.4.10
0.4.4.7
0.4.4.6
0.4.4.5
0.4.4.3
0.4.4.2
0.4.4.1
0.4.4
0.4.3.6
0.4.3.5
0.4.3.4
0.4.3.3
0.4.3.1
0.4.3
0.4.2
0.4.1
0.4.0
0.3.0.3.4
t414-infrareviewfix
t414-proposalfix
0.3.0.3
0.3.0.2
0.3.0.1
0.3.0
0.2.5
Labels
Clear labels   
Closed As
Duplicate
Closed with the reason of Duplicate

  
Closed As
Fixed
Closed with the reason of Fixed

  
Closed As
Invalid
Closed with the reason of Invalid

  
discussions

issues related to the blocker discussion system in pagure

  
easyfix

   
enhancement

a request for or implementation of an enhancement (not a bug fix)

  
task

issue that isn't a bug fix or enhancement but some kind of admin task

  
Backlog Status
Needs Review
Work items that have been created or updated but need review, refinement, or approval before they can be considered ready for sprint planning.

  
Backlog Status
Ready
Work items that have been reviewed, refined, and are ready to be committed to a sprint. These items have clear requirements and can be worked on immediately when capacity is available.

  
chore

Work that needs to be done but doesn't add new functionality or fix bugs. Maintenance tasks that keep the system running smoothly and the codebase clean.

  
documentation

Work focused on creating, updating, or improving documentation for users, developers, or system administrators.

  
points
01
A task that is simple, small, and has very little uncertainty. It should be easy enough for any team member to pick up and complete quickly, without a lot of discussion or research.

  
points
02
This is a task that is slightly more complex or larger than a "1." It might involve two or three simple steps, but the outcome is still very clear and there's little uncertainty.

  
points
03
Medium-sized task with some noticeable complexity. It might require a bit more thought or collaboration. The steps are well-defined, but it's not a trivial change.

  
points
05
A significant piece of work. It has more complexity and a higher degree of uncertainty than smaller tasks. It might require some research, a design discussion, or collaboration across multiple teams.

  
points
08
Complex task with a lot of uncertainty. It's often the largest size that a team will consider for a single sprint. It likely requires a detailed breakdown and multiple team members to complete.

  
points
13
Any task that feels like it's a "13" or more is considered an Epic. These are too large and uncertain to be worked on in a single sprint and should be broken down.

  
Priority
Critical
This is for work that is urgent and of critical importance and so and must be addressed immediately with a higher priority than all other work, even if not originally planned for the current sprint.

  
Priority
High
This is for work that is critical and needs to be addressed in the next sprint. It's often for urgent bugs, important features, or a major piece of technical debt that is blocking other work.

  
Priority
Low
This is for work that is good to do but not urgent. It's a candidate for being worked on when there's extra time or when it rises in importance. It can stay in the backlog for a longer period.

  
Priority
Medium
This is for important work that should be done soon, but isn't as urgent as a high-priority item. It will likely be considered for the next 1-2 sprints.

  
Sprint Status
Blocked
Work items that cannot progress due to external dependencies, blockers, or issues that need resolution.

  
Sprint Status
Done
Work items that have been completed, reviewed, and integrated. No further work is needed within the current sprint.

  
Sprint Status
In Progress
Work items currently being worked on by a team member. Active development, research, or implementation is happening.

  
Sprint Status
Review
Work items that are complete but need review, testing, or approval before being marked as done.

  
Sprint Status
To Do
Work items that are committed to the sprint but haven't been started yet. These items are ready to be picked up by team members.

  
Technical Debt

Work that addresses shortcuts, workarounds, or suboptimal implementations that were done previously to meet deadlines. These items improve code quality, maintainability, or performance without adding new features.

  
Work Item
Bug
Issues where the system is not working as intended or designed. Bugs represent deviations from expected behavior.

  
Work Item
Epic
Large initiatives that are broken down into multiple smaller work items (user stories, tasks, bugs). Epics represent significant features or projects that span multiple sprints.

  
Work Item
Spike
Time-boxed research, investigation, or proof-of-concept work to reduce uncertainty or explore solutions. Spikes help inform future development decisions.

  
Work Item
Task
Used to break down larger user stories into smaller, manageable implementation pieces. They focus on the specific technical steps needed to deliver the user story's value.

  
Work Item
User Story
User-facing features or functionality that can be framed from a user perspective, describing what someone wants to accomplish and why.

No labels
Closed As
Duplicate
Closed As
Fixed
Closed As
Invalid
discussions
easyfix
enhancement
task
Backlog Status
Needs Review
Backlog Status
Ready
chore
documentation
points
01
points
02
points
03
points
05
points
08
points
13
Priority
Critical
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Medium
Sprint Status
Blocked
Sprint Status
Done
Sprint Status
In Progress
Sprint Status
Review
Sprint Status
To Do
Technical Debt
Work Item
Bug
Work Item
Epic
Work Item
Spike
Work Item
Task
Work Item
User Story
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Sprint 5
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
kparal
jgroman
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Blocks
#300 Set up CI and AI pull request review via Forgejo actions
quality/blockerbugs
Depends on
#299 WIP: Blockerbot for Forge
quality/blockerbugs
#3195 quality: Update blockerbugs app env variables
infra/ansible
Reference
quality/blockerbugs#296
No description provided.