Change the cronet recipe_module to use bot_update.

Change the cronet recipe_module to use bot_update.

This should make the android_cronet_tester actually apply a patch now.

BUG=

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=299457

[martiniss, 2016-03-01 00:13:23]

martiniss@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ hinoka@chromium.org

[martiniss, 2016-03-01 00:13:24]

PTAL

[martiniss, 2016-03-01 00:14:18]

martiniss@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ mef@chromium.org, xunjieli@chromium.org

[martiniss, 2016-03-01 00:14:19]

PTAL

[hinoka, 2016-03-01 00:16:28]

lgtm

[mef, 2016-03-01 16:08:37]

On 2016/03/01 00:16:28, hinoka wrote:
> lgtm

Can we limit this change to android_cronet_tester? 
I think the flag was set to false for a reason, and looking at drastic change in
expectations I'm afraid that it will affect all builders, including official
waterfall.

[xunjieli, 2016-03-09 15:48:29]

ping.. Any update on this CL?

[martiniss, 2016-03-11 03:29:32]

On 2016/03/09 at 15:48:29, xunjieli wrote:
> ping.. Any update on this CL?

Sorry, been busy on some recipe stuff. This should be fairly free to land, just
haven't had the time to land and make sure everything doesn't break :/

If you want to  land it, feel free to. Might need a rebase, i'll check right
now.

[pauljensen, 2016-03-16 18:38:25]

On 2016/03/11 03:29:32, martiniss wrote:
> On 2016/03/09 at 15:48:29, xunjieli wrote:
> > ping.. Any update on this CL?
> 
> Sorry, been busy on some recipe stuff. This should be fairly free to land,
just
> haven't had the time to land and make sure everything doesn't break :/
> 
> If you want to  land it, feel free to. Might need a rebase, i'll check right
> now.

Misha/Helen/Stephen, I think this is too important to delay much more.  Can we
land it now?

[xunjieli, 2016-03-16 18:46:41]

On 2016/03/16 18:38:25, pauljensen wrote:
> On 2016/03/11 03:29:32, martiniss wrote:
> > On 2016/03/09 at 15:48:29, xunjieli wrote:
> > > ping.. Any update on this CL?
> > 
> > Sorry, been busy on some recipe stuff. This should be fairly free to land,
> just
> > haven't had the time to land and make sure everything doesn't break :/
> > 
> > If you want to  land it, feel free to. Might need a rebase, i'll check right
> > now.
> 
> Misha/Helen/Stephen, I think this is too important to delay much more.  Can we
> land it now?

I am fine with it is. Misha had a concern on the use_bot_update flag being set
to true from false. But I don't know how it works.

[mef, 2016-03-16 18:57:19]

On 2016/03/16 18:46:41, xunjieli wrote:
> On 2016/03/16 18:38:25, pauljensen wrote:
> > On 2016/03/11 03:29:32, martiniss wrote:
> > > On 2016/03/09 at 15:48:29, xunjieli wrote:
> > > > ping.. Any update on this CL?
> > > 
> > > Sorry, been busy on some recipe stuff. This should be fairly free to land,
> > just
> > > haven't had the time to land and make sure everything doesn't break :/
> > > 
> > > If you want to  land it, feel free to. Might need a rebase, i'll check
right
> > > now.
> > 
> > Misha/Helen/Stephen, I think this is too important to delay much more.  Can
we
> > land it now?
> 
> I am fine with it is. Misha had a concern on the use_bot_update flag being set
> to true from false. But I don't know how it works.

If you look at .expected changes, they are pretty drastic, and that concerns me.
I don't remember the details, but I think we use bot_update(false) for a reason.

I don't mind landing it to see whether it breaks, but don't want to be the one
fixing it.

[martiniss, 2016-03-16 23:38:36]

On 2016/03/16 at 18:57:19, mef wrote:
> On 2016/03/16 18:46:41, xunjieli wrote:
> > On 2016/03/16 18:38:25, pauljensen wrote:
> > > On 2016/03/11 03:29:32, martiniss wrote:
> > > > On 2016/03/09 at 15:48:29, xunjieli wrote:
> > > > > ping.. Any update on this CL?
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, been busy on some recipe stuff. This should be fairly free to
land,
> > > just
> > > > haven't had the time to land and make sure everything doesn't break :/
> > > > 
> > > > If you want to  land it, feel free to. Might need a rebase, i'll check
right
> > > > now.
> > > 
> > > Misha/Helen/Stephen, I think this is too important to delay much more. 
Can we
> > > land it now?
> > 
> > I am fine with it is. Misha had a concern on the use_bot_update flag being
set
> > to true from false. But I don't know how it works.
> 
> If you look at .expected changes, they are pretty drastic, and that concerns
me.
> I don't remember the details, but I think we use bot_update(false) for a
reason.
> 
> I don't mind landing it to see whether it breaks, but don't want to be the one
fixing it.

I tried switching the internal android recipes over to this downstream
(https://chromereviews.googleplex.com/369637013), but that ended up breaking the
waterfall, so I had to revert it. I'll work on this later today/tomorrow and try
to land this patch, and the downstream one.

[pauljensen, 2016-03-21 12:19:05]

On 2016/03/16 23:38:36, martiniss wrote:
> On 2016/03/16 at 18:57:19, mef wrote:
> > On 2016/03/16 18:46:41, xunjieli wrote:
> > > On 2016/03/16 18:38:25, pauljensen wrote:
> > > > On 2016/03/11 03:29:32, martiniss wrote:
> > > > > On 2016/03/09 at 15:48:29, xunjieli wrote:
> > > > > > ping.. Any update on this CL?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sorry, been busy on some recipe stuff. This should be fairly free to
> land,
> > > > just
> > > > > haven't had the time to land and make sure everything doesn't break :/
> > > > > 
> > > > > If you want to  land it, feel free to. Might need a rebase, i'll check
> right
> > > > > now.
> > > > 
> > > > Misha/Helen/Stephen, I think this is too important to delay much more. 
> Can we
> > > > land it now?
> > > 
> > > I am fine with it is. Misha had a concern on the use_bot_update flag being
> set
> > > to true from false. But I don't know how it works.
> > 
> > If you look at .expected changes, they are pretty drastic, and that concerns
> me.
> > I don't remember the details, but I think we use bot_update(false) for a
> reason.
> > 
> > I don't mind landing it to see whether it breaks, but don't want to be the
one
> fixing it.
> 
> I tried switching the internal android recipes over to this downstream
> (https://chromereviews.googleplex.com/369637013), but that ended up breaking
the
> waterfall, so I had to revert it. I'll work on this later today/tomorrow and
try
> to land this patch, and the downstream one.

Ping martiniss, how's this going?

[martiniss, 2016-03-24 01:11:43]

On 2016/03/21 at 12:19:05, pauljensen wrote:
> On 2016/03/16 23:38:36, martiniss wrote:
> > On 2016/03/16 at 18:57:19, mef wrote:
> > > On 2016/03/16 18:46:41, xunjieli wrote:
> > > > On 2016/03/16 18:38:25, pauljensen wrote:
> > > > > On 2016/03/11 03:29:32, martiniss wrote:
> > > > > > On 2016/03/09 at 15:48:29, xunjieli wrote:
> > > > > > > ping.. Any update on this CL?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Sorry, been busy on some recipe stuff. This should be fairly free to
> > land,
> > > > > just
> > > > > > haven't had the time to land and make sure everything doesn't break
:/
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If you want to  land it, feel free to. Might need a rebase, i'll
check
> > right
> > > > > > now.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Misha/Helen/Stephen, I think this is too important to delay much more.

> > Can we
> > > > > land it now?
> > > > 
> > > > I am fine with it is. Misha had a concern on the use_bot_update flag
being
> > set
> > > > to true from false. But I don't know how it works.
> > > 
> > > If you look at .expected changes, they are pretty drastic, and that
concerns
> > me.
> > > I don't remember the details, but I think we use bot_update(false) for a
> > reason.
> > > 
> > > I don't mind landing it to see whether it breaks, but don't want to be the
one
> > fixing it.
> > 
> > I tried switching the internal android recipes over to this downstream
> > (https://chromereviews.googleplex.com/369637013), but that ended up breaking
the
> > waterfall, so I had to revert it. I'll work on this later today/tomorrow and
try
> > to land this patch, and the downstream one.
> 
> Ping martiniss, how's this going?

Sorry for the late reply, been busy. I'll try landing this tonight and see if it
sticks.

[martiniss, 2016-03-24 01:12:05]

On 2016/03/24 at 01:11:43, martiniss wrote:
> On 2016/03/21 at 12:19:05, pauljensen wrote:
> > On 2016/03/16 23:38:36, martiniss wrote:
> > > On 2016/03/16 at 18:57:19, mef wrote:
> > > > On 2016/03/16 18:46:41, xunjieli wrote:
> > > > > On 2016/03/16 18:38:25, pauljensen wrote:
> > > > > > On 2016/03/11 03:29:32, martiniss wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2016/03/09 at 15:48:29, xunjieli wrote:
> > > > > > > > ping.. Any update on this CL?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Sorry, been busy on some recipe stuff. This should be fairly free
to
> > > land,
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > haven't had the time to land and make sure everything doesn't
break :/
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If you want to  land it, feel free to. Might need a rebase, i'll
check
> > > right
> > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Misha/Helen/Stephen, I think this is too important to delay much
more. 
> > > Can we
> > > > > > land it now?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I am fine with it is. Misha had a concern on the use_bot_update flag
being
> > > set
> > > > > to true from false. But I don't know how it works.
> > > > 
> > > > If you look at .expected changes, they are pretty drastic, and that
concerns
> > > me.
> > > > I don't remember the details, but I think we use bot_update(false) for a
> > > reason.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't mind landing it to see whether it breaks, but don't want to be
the one
> > > fixing it.
> > > 
> > > I tried switching the internal android recipes over to this downstream
> > > (https://chromereviews.googleplex.com/369637013), but that ended up
breaking the
> > > waterfall, so I had to revert it. I'll work on this later today/tomorrow
and try
> > > to land this patch, and the downstream one.
> > 
> > Ping martiniss, how's this going?
> 
> Sorry for the late reply, been busy. I'll try landing this tonight and see if
it sticks.

(and if it breaks I'll revert and fix everything :) )

[martiniss, 2016-03-24 02:57:17]

The CQ bit was checked by martiniss@chromium.org

[martiniss, 2016-03-24 02:57:17]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from hinoka@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1750743002/#ps120001
(title: "Rebase.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-24 02:57:28]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1750743002/120001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1750743002/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-24 02:58:58]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-24 02:58:59]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  Build Presubmit on tryserver.infra (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.infra/builders/Build%20Presubmit/build...)
  Build Try Recipe Test Trusty64 on tryserver.infra (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.infra/builders/Build%20Try%20Recipe%20...)
  Build Try Recipe Test Win64 on tryserver.infra (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.infra/builders/Build%20Try%20Recipe%20...)

[martiniss, 2016-03-24 03:03:28]

The CQ bit was checked by martiniss@chromium.org

[martiniss, 2016-03-24 03:03:28]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from hinoka@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1750743002/#ps140001
(title: "Rebase.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-24 03:03:31]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1750743002/140001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1750743002/140001

[martiniss, 2016-03-24 03:08:49]

The CQ bit was checked by martiniss@chromium.org

[martiniss, 2016-03-24 03:08:50]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from hinoka@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1750743002/#ps160001
(title: "Old Expectations.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-24 03:09:00]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1750743002/160001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1750743002/160001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-24 03:13:00]

Description was changed from

==========
Change the cronet recipe_module to use bot_update.

This should make the android_cronet_tester actually apply a patch now.

BUG=
==========

to

==========
Change the cronet recipe_module to use bot_update.

This should make the android_cronet_tester actually apply a patch now.

BUG=

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=299457
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-24 03:13:01]

Committed patchset #9 (id:160001) as
http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=299457

[martiniss, 2016-03-24 03:39:58]

On 2016/03/24 at 03:13:01, commit-bot wrote:
> Committed patchset #9 (id:160001) as
http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=299457

ok, looks like it's stuck ok!
https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.android/builders/Android%20Cronet%20ARM...
seems to be green

The trybot still isn't working; you need to edit
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/tools/mb/mb_config...
to have the config you want; probably you can just duplicate the current
chromium.android bots.

[xunjieli, 2016-03-24 13:30:07]

On 2016/03/24 03:39:58, martiniss wrote:
> On 2016/03/24 at 03:13:01, commit-bot wrote:
> > Committed patchset #9 (id:160001) as
> http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=299457
> 
> ok, looks like it's stuck ok!
>
https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.android/builders/Android%20Cronet%20ARM...
> seems to be green
> 
> The trybot still isn't working; you need to edit
>
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/tools/mb/mb_config...
> to have the config you want; probably you can just duplicate the current
> chromium.android bots.

Thanks, Stephen. I filed crbug.com/597596 to follow up.