feat: GitLab support with tests #1034

jpaodev · 2025-03-17T00:02:25Z

Reference Issues/PRs

What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.

This issue implements GitLab Support. A previous Merge Request has existed, however used the python-gitlab library. To keep the setup minimal, the already existing requests library has been used in this version.

Additionally tests have been added to ensure functionality, as previously requested.

The Merge Requests aims to achieve GitLab support, motivated by the fact, that many developers use GitLab as an alternative solution to GitHub. Through this feature those developers can test SWE-Agent on their repositories as well.

I hope the changes are satisfactory and apologize for the huge delay to the first Merge Request! Once again big thanks for making this available for everyone to use!

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

klieret · 2025-03-17T18:39:03Z

Hi @jpaodev ! Thank you for this PR. I see lots of changes, it will take me a while to review this in detail.

Really appreciate that its well tested!

So here's what I think from top of my head:

Basic support for problem statement/repo etc.: Looking all good, no problems. Maybe we can factor out some shared code of the copy_repo bit between the github and gitlab repo cloning. But basically as this seems to work and doesn't increase complexity, all good.
OpenPR action: This class just gets a lot more complicated with this PR, which is not great. We want to keep things simple and maintainable, so this makes me uncomfortable. I think it would make more sense to have a OpenMRGitLab hook (as a separate class/file) and then add that if the open_pr action is specified and we have a gitlab repo.

Regarding 2) In run_single.py:

    @classmethod
    def from_config(cls, config: RunSingleConfig) -> Self:
        ....
        if config.actions.open_pr:
            self.logger.debug("Adding OpenPRHook")
            if isinstance(config.repo, GitHub...) 
                self.add_hook(OpenPRHook(config.actions.pr_config))
            elif isinstance(config.repo, GitLab...)
                self.add_hook(...)
        return self

So tl;dr: I'm happy to merge anything that doesn't increase the complexity of what we have and that can simply live in a separate class/file. This is true for the ProblemStabement and Repo part, but maybe not yet for the open_pr part.

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

jpaodev · 2025-03-17T20:24:41Z

Hi @jpaodev ! Thank you for this PR. I see lots of changes, it will take me a while to review this in detail.

Really appreciate that its well tested!

So here's what I think from top of my head:

Basic support for problem statement/repo etc.: Looking all good, no problems. Maybe we can factor out some shared code of the copy_repo bit between the github and gitlab repo cloning. But basically as this seems to work and doesn't increase complexity, all good.

OpenPR action: This class just gets a lot more complicated with this PR, which is not great. We want to keep things simple and maintainable, so this makes me uncomfortable. I think it would make more sense to have a OpenMRGitLab hook (as a separate class/file) and then add that if the open_pr action is specified and we have a gitlab repo.

Regarding 2) In run_single.py:
    @classmethod
    def from_config(cls, config: RunSingleConfig) -> Self:
        ....
        if config.actions.open_pr:
            self.logger.debug("Adding OpenPRHook")
            if isinstance(config.repo, GitHub...) 
                self.add_hook(OpenPRHook(config.actions.pr_config))
            elif isinstance(config.repo, GitLab...)
                self.add_hook(...)
        return self
So tl;dr: I'm happy to merge anything that doesn't increase the complexity of what we have and that can simply live in a separate class/file. This is true for the ProblemStabement and Repo part, but maybe not yet for the open_pr part.

Totally agree! I haven't noticed how big the file has gotten, phew! 😄
Also really looking forward to write those tests with SWEAgent in the future fully 😄

Tested both the GitHub issue / GitLab issue combinations manually (the hello world example from your repository and the one I placed on GitLab)

Let me know if the changes are fine!

codecov · 2025-04-04T20:06:01Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 79.33526% with 143 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
sweagent/run/hooks/open_pr_gitlab.py	33.60%	81 Missing ⚠️
sweagent/utils/gitlab.py	58.33%	35 Missing ⚠️
sweagent/run/run_single.py	33.33%	8 Missing ⚠️
tests/test_gitlab_integration.py	91.66%	8 Missing ⚠️
sweagent/agent/problem_statement.py	85.71%	4 Missing ⚠️
tests/test_gitlab_mr.py	92.30%	4 Missing ⚠️
sweagent/environment/repo.py	93.47%	3 Missing ⚠️

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
tests/test_gitlab_repo.py	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
tests/test_gitlab_run_single.py	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
tests/test_gitlab_utils.py	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
sweagent/environment/repo.py	`83.33% <93.47%> (+9.74%)`	⬆️
sweagent/agent/problem_statement.py	`91.15% <85.71%> (+1.61%)`	⬆️
tests/test_gitlab_mr.py	`92.30% <92.30%> (ø)`
sweagent/run/run_single.py	`85.59% <33.33%> (-4.32%)`	⬇️
tests/test_gitlab_integration.py	`91.66% <91.66%> (ø)`
sweagent/utils/gitlab.py	`58.33% <58.33%> (ø)`
sweagent/run/hooks/open_pr_gitlab.py	`33.60% <33.60%> (ø)`

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

…upport

klieret · 2025-05-06T13:39:05Z

Sorry that I didn't have time to merge this yet. I'll need to review again, but it might happen only after the NEURIPS deadline. We were working a lot on https://swesmith.com/ and had to prioritize this over supporting other platforms. That being said, I think the basic support for gitlab repos is great (the PR thing yes, if it doesn't add more complexity).

jpaodev · 2025-05-08T01:52:39Z

@klieret no worries - I spotted some problems and I will test everything by hand again, because we also plan to use and present this. Very greatful for the solution overall.

Will comment if everything also works fine with subgroups!

jpaodev · 2025-05-08T05:42:54Z

@klieret ok now LGTM, tested with normal groups and subgroups (Docker ReX Deployment) and also ran jobs within GitLab CI jobs (Local ReX Deployment)

The only thing that is in the PR that bothers me is the Merge Request creation: It has no retry logic -> on my switch-openai branch I drafted a retry with Tenacity, though I'll have to check tenacity a bit to ensure there's nothing wrong

Lmk if you spot anything that's wrong! :)

jpaodev and others added 3 commits March 17, 2025 00:53

feat: GitLab support with tests

eb336e0

[pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks

7f1a1bb

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

fix: Fix detected ruff pre-commit issues for GitLab feature

6177b21

klieret mentioned this pull request Mar 17, 2025

Completely offline implementations: Gitea/GitLab+Ollama? #1027

Closed

jpaodev and others added 2 commits March 17, 2025 10:56

fix: Fix broken functions detected by tests

aa11ca6

[pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks

e086942

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

jpaodev and others added 2 commits March 17, 2025 21:23

refactor: Move Gitlab PR Hook to separate file as requested

85d713b

[pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks

97dead4

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

Merge commit 'bb80cbe3d48c6d1f3140ebe20dc52bb4408a46a4' into gitlab-s…

a75c911

…upport

jpaodev added 2 commits May 7, 2025 11:25

fix: Fix GitLab Regex for subgroup projects

8deb4c6

fix: Gitlab Regex Pattern Groups

c62fbd9

fix: GitLab Subgroups Sanitization for repo_name

106895f

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: GitLab support with tests #1034

feat: GitLab support with tests #1034

feat: GitLab support with tests #1034

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat: GitLab support with tests #1034

Conversation

Reference Issues/PRs

What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.

Codecov Report