Add build reverse dependencies research

Update research/build-reverse-dependencies/index.md

Co-authored-by: Laura Barcziová <[email protected]>

Author: majamassarini

research/build-reverse-dependencies/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+---
+title: Build reverse dependencies in Packit
+authors: mmassari
+---
+
+Already existing solutions:
+
+- [Koschei service](https://github.com/fedora-infra/koschei)
+- [Mass Prebuild CLI](https://gitlab.com/fedora/packager-tools/mass-prebuild)
+- [mini mass rebuild](https://github.com/hroncok/mini-mass-rebuild)
+- [copr-autorebuilder](https://pagure.io/copr-autorebuilder/tree/master)
+- [copr-rebuild-tools](https://github.com/fedora-copr/copr-rebuild-tools/tree/main)
+
+The first two in the above list are specifically designed for resolving reverse dependencies and this research will focus on them.
+
+## Koschei
+
+[Koschei](https://apps.fedoraproject.org/koschei) is a **continuous integration service** for RPM packages that tracks package dependency changes in Fedora Rawhide and rebuilds packages whose dependencies change too much.
+
+**Koschei depends on Koji**. New Koji builds "trigger" Koschei and Koschei rebuilds reverse dependencies as Koji scratch builds.
+**Koji scratch builds do not trigger Koshei** at the moment.
+This means that Koschei can be used as a CI service only after a _downstream release synchronization_ but **our users would like to check changes before making a downstream release synchronization.**
+
+If we want to use Koshei as an upstream CI service (or even downstream but without the need of a downstream release synchronization) we need to **make it react to scratch builds**.
+
+The Koschei project is not much lively, at least upstream; different reported issues are not being answered or worked on. For this reason I fear integrating new features in the Koschei production service could take a long time.
+
+If we want to use Koschei we could also think about **fork the project** and create our own instance inside the Packit cluster. This approach could give us two advantages:
+
+- Shorter time to production and our changes can always be taken back by the original project at some point.
+- We can re-enable COPR as a backend for Koschei builds. Accordingly to [this thread](https://pagure.io/fedora-ci/general/issue/45) Koschei has had a COPR backend for a while, but it has been removed (because COPR is a third party service not supported by the Fedora Infrastructure). Enabling COPR as a backend will allow the service to work even for those upstream projects which are not completely integrated in Fedora (if needed).
+
+What are the **PROs** I see in re-using Koshei:
+
+- We could benefit from an already well known somehow "standardized" user interface (the Koschei frontend).
+- We shouldn't need to be able to calculate reverse dependencies in Packit and submit builds from Packit if we will reuse (the Koschei backend).
+
+What are the **CONs** I see in re-using Koshei:
+
+- As far as I can understand it, the guy who wrote Koshei does not work anymore in Red Hat. We can not ask him for any help dealing with the Koschei code.
+- We could face unknown problems.
+
+## Mass Prebuild
+
+This is a CLI tool that resolves reverse dependencies and rebuild them all. It can work with both Koji and COPR.
+Even if it is a CLI tool we can not easily integrate it in packit-service because of two main design choices:
+
+- the tool interacts with a database
+- the tool keeps a session and can interact with the user
+
+The above design choices make the command line tool and also the code behind it not reusable as it is.
+
+## Build our own solution
+
+We will need:
+
+1. a way to resolve reverse dependencies
+
+   - we can follow the [Koschei way](https://github.com/fedora-infra/koschei/blob/master/koschei/backend/depsolve.py) which uses `hawkey` from `libdnf`
+   - or we can follow the [Mass prebuild way](https://gitlab.com/fedora/packager-tools/mass-prebuild/-/blob/main/mass_prebuild/utils/whatrequires.py?ref_type=heads): given a package or a set of packages, namely "main packages", the mass pre-builder will calculate the list of its direct reverse dependencies: packages that explicitly mark one of the main packages in their "BuildRequires" field. As far as I can understand it, this is a **less deep** and thus **less complete** approach compared with the Koschei solution.
+   - we can **avoid calculating dependencies** and let the user specify them in a static way.
+
+2. a way to schedule builds in Koji or COPR (or both).
+
+   We are quite good at submitting builds in both services but we are not good at dealing with dependencies.
+
+   - **if we don't need to interact with the rebuild process** we can depend upon:
+
+     - the [COPR build batches](https://docs.pagure.org/copr.copr/user_documentation.html#build-batches) feature that allows you to define the order of your builds in advance.
+
+     ```
+           $ copr build <project> --no-wait <first.src.rpm>
+           Created builds: 101010
+           $ copr build <project> --no-wait <second.src.rpm> --after-build-id 101010
+           Created builds: 101020
+           $ copr build <project> --no-wait <third.src.rpm> --with-build-id 101020
+           Created builds: 101030
+     ```
+
+     - or/and the [Koji chained builds](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Using_the_Koji_Build_System/#chained_builds)
+
+     ```
+           fedpkg chain-build --target=side-tag-name libwidget libaselib : libgizmo :
+     ```
+
+   - but we should be aware that **the mass prebuild tool is designed in a way that lets you interact with every single step of the long rebuild process**. I don't know exactly why, but if I got it correctly, this process is error prone and the user may like to be able to continue it from a point of failure or may like to resubmit a failed build. I think it is worth discussing with the mass pre build developer why he has chosen to go this way.
+
+     If we want the user to be able to interact with every step in this long process we should probably be capable of dealing with **job dependencies**.
+
+3. Besides a quick check status in the PR we should need also a new (dashboard) view with the summary status of all the reverse dependencies builds (probably something like our actual pipeline view).
+
+**PROs**:
+
+- If we don't need to deal with **job dependencies** probably this is the solution with **less unknowns**. More easily planned.
+
+**CONs**:
+
+- Both designing a good dashboard view and dealing with job dependencies could be not that easy.