Epic: Implement GitHub integration sync

[joshsmith]

Problem

We need to reliably and concurrently sync tasks and comments to and from GitHub in a non-blocking way.

By providing a timestamp-based concurrency control system we can use a known algorithm to make our GitHub integration more robust.

More importantly, we will be able to unblock our other objectives. We cannot proceed with onboarding projects or volunteers unless GitHub sync is stable, since our overall strategy depends on us connecting volunteers to tasks.

Tasks

In scope

• [ ] Cleanup and decouple existing modules. Goal is to flatten them out as much as possible, to make it easier to facilitate a queue system
• [ ] Add TaskSyncOperation model
• [ ] Add CommentSyncOperation model
• [ ] Create a TaskSyncOperation when issue webhook is received
• [ ] Create a TaskSyncOperation when pull request webhook is received
• [ ] Create a TaskSyncOperation when the task is created/updated from the client
• [ ] Create a CommentSyncOperation when issue comment webhook is received
• [ ] Create a CommentSyncOperation when the comment is created/updated from the client
• [ ] Consider timestamps from GitHub to be the latest - i.e. don’t be pessimistic (due to second-level granularity) https://platform.github.community/t/timestamp-granularity/4663
• [ ] Define proposal for the queuing system
• [ ] Add an admin dashboard for the operations

Out of scope

• [ ] Add back pressure for rate limits
• [ ] Respond to 304 not modified for both GET and PATCH
• [ ] find_or_create vs create_or_update (we should probably change to find_or_create) → XLinker
• [ ] Add fetch step after receiving the webhook
• [ ] Provide queue feedback to the user for the task
• [ ] Provide queue feedback to the user for the comment
• [ ] Figure out if user’s are only seeing what they’re allowed to see (primary concern are installations)
• [ ] Double-check timestamp when processing
• [ ] Figure out if an atomic step system is feasible, where we would not need operations and instead have each record update be something that’s ok to be executed individually.
• [ ] Think about breaking apart sync steps into their own “operations” vs Ecto.Multi transactions

Outline

We would have a sync operation for each type of internal record we want to sync. For example:

• TaskSyncOperation
• CommentSyncOperation

Every sync operation record, regardless of type, would have a:

• direction - :inbound | :outbound
• github_app_installation_id - the id of the app installation for this sync
• github_updated_at - the last updated at timestamp for the resource on GitHub
• canceled_by - the id of the SyncOperation that canceled this one
• duplicate_of - the id of the SyncOperation that this is a duplicate of
• dropped_for - the id of the SyncOperation that this was dropped in favor of
• state
  • :queued - waiting to be processed
  • :processing - currently being processed; limited to one per instance of the synced record, e.g. comment_id
  • :completed - successfully synced
  • :errored - should be paired with a reason for the error
  • :canceled - another operation supersedes this one, so we should not process it
  • :dropped - this operation was outdated and was dropped
  • :duplicate - another operation already existed that matched the timestamp for this one
  • :disabled - we received the operation but cannot sync it because the repo no longer syncs to a project

Then each type would have type-specific fields, e.g. a CommentSyncOperation would have:

• comment_id - the id of our comment record
• github_comment_id - the id of our cached record for the external resource
• github_comment_external_id - the id of the resource from the external provider (GitHub)

If the event is due to the resource being created, there will not be a conflict. If the resource was created from our own clients, then there is no external GitHub ID yet. The same is true of events coming in from external providers and there is no internal record yet. I'm not yet clear as to whether we should conduct any conflict checking on these event types, but my guess is no. It should likely jump straight to :processing.

When an event comes in from GitHub we should (using a github_comment as our example):

• delegate to the proper sync operation table for the particular resource (in our example this would be comment_sync_operations)
• check if there are any operations for the github_comment_external_id where:
  • the github_updated_at is after our operation's last updated timestamp (limit 1)
  • if yes, set state to :dropped and stop processing, set dropped_for to the id of the operation in the limit 1 query
  • the github_updated_at timestamp for the relevant record_ is equal to our operation's last updated timestamp (limit 1)
  • if yes, set state to :duplicate and stop processing, set duplicate_of to the id of the operation in the limit 1
  • the modified_at timestamp for the relevant record_ is after our operation's last updated timestamp
  • if yes, set state to :dropped and stop processing, set dropped_for to the id of the operation in the limit 1 query
• check if there are any :queued operations for the integration_external_id where:
  • github_updated_at is before our operation's last updated timestamp
  • if yes, set state of those operations to :canceled and set canceled_by to the id of this event
• check if there is any other :queued operation or :processing operation for the integration_external_id
  • if yes, set state to :queued
• when :processing, check again to see if we can proceed, then create or update the comment through the relationship on the record for comment_id
• when :completed, kick off process to look for next :queued item where the github_updated_at timestamp is the oldest

We would also need within the logic for updating the given record to check whether the record's updated timestamp is after the operation's timestamp. If it is, then we need to bubble the changeset validation error and mark the operation as :dropped per the above.

Some upsides of the approaches above that I wanted to document, in no particular order:

• The tracking above generates some implicit audit trails that will be helpful for debugging.
• Any unique-per-record queued operations can be run in parallel without issue, i.e. we can run operations for %Comment{id: 1} and %Comment{id: 2} without any conflict.
• We can avoid "thundering herd" problems when the system receives back pressure by having control over precisely how the queue is processed.
• We can use this in conjunction with rate limiting to only process the number of events we have in the queue for the given rate limit and defer further processing until after the rate limit has expired.

[joshsmith]

A thought on the queue: perhaps we could spawn a task every time a operation record is enqueued or processed. The task looks for operation records to process and exits if none are currently able to be processed.

We would want to process every operation that does not have a operation for the same record being processed currently.

By way of example, assume the following operations:

1. github_issue_github_id: 1 - processing
2. github_issue_github_id: 1 - queued
3. github_issue_github_id: 2 - queued
4. github_issue_github_id: 2 - queued

If we were to spawn a task now, we would get the following:

1. github_issue_github_id: 1 - processing
2. github_issue_github_id: 1 - queued
3. github_issue_github_id: 2 - processing
4. github_issue_github_id: 2 - queued

Assume 1 now moves to processed. Then our task would we would now move 2 to processing while 4 still remains queued:

1. github_issue_github_id: 1 - processed
2. github_issue_github_id: 1 - processing
3. github_issue_github_id: 2 - processing
4. github_issue_github_id: 2 - queued

Later still, 3 moves to processed, so then 4 moves to processing:

1. github_issue_github_id: 1 - processed
2. github_issue_github_id: 1 - processing
3. github_issue_github_id: 2 - processed
4. github_issue_github_id: 2 - processing

And so on.

The queue is therefore asynchronous across resources but synchronous per resource.

[joshsmith]

Tightly grouped events happen fairly frequently, particularly when issues/pull requests are labeled, assigned, etc at time of creation:

The image above shows multiple "simultaneous" events occurring on the same pull request.

We'll likely need to consider some type of ordering-system that is not timestamp-based solely, but some combination of the timestamp, event, and data that changed. In the short-term, it can probably be resolved by dropping those events and simply using the fetch of the remote data to make our changes.

[joshsmith]

Might I suggest a quick name change here: instead of TaskSyncTransaction we could call this a TaskSyncOperation. Thoughts?

[begedin]

Operation means less overlap and confusion when discussing actual transactions, so I'm all for it.

[joshsmith]

I've updated the bits above to use operation over transaction everywhere, except the Ecto.Multi case.