Gerrit Code Review - Prolog Submit Rules Cookbook
=================================================

Submit Rule
-----------
A 'Submit Rule' in Gerrit is logic that defines when a change is submittable.
By default, a change is submittable when it gets at least one
highest vote in each voting category and has no lowest vote (aka veto vote) in
any category.  Typically, this means that a change needs 'Code-Review+2',
'Verified+1' and has neither 'Code-Review-2' nor 'Verified-1' to become
submittable.

While this rule is a good default, there are projects which need more
flexibility for defining when a change is submittable.  In Gerrit, it is
possible to use Prolog based rules to provide project specific submit rules and
replace the default submit rules. Using Prolog based rules, project owners can
define a set of criteria which must be fulfilled for a change to become
submittable. For a change that is not submittable, the set of needed criteria
is displayed in the Gerrit UI.

NOTE: Loading and executing Prolog submit rules may be disabled by setting
`rules.enabled=false` in the Gerrit config file (see
link:config-gerrit.html#_a_id_rules_a_section_rules[rules section])

link:https://groups.google.com/d/topic/repo-discuss/wJxTGhlHZMM/discussion[This
discussion thread] explains why Prolog was chosen for the purpose of writing
project specific submit rules.
link:http://gerrit-documentation.googlecode.com/svn/ReleaseNotes/ReleaseNotes-2.2.2.html[Gerrit
2.2.2 ReleaseNotes] introduces Prolog support in Gerrit.

Prolog Language
---------------
This document is not a complete Prolog tutorial.
link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolog[This Wikipedia page on Prolog] is a
good starting point for learning the Prolog language. This document will only explain
some elements of Prolog that are necessary to understand the provided examples.

Prolog in Gerrit
----------------
Gerrit uses its own link:https://code.google.com/p/prolog-cafe/[fork] of the
original link:http://kaminari.istc.kobe-u.ac.jp/PrologCafe/[prolog-cafe]
project. Gerrit embeds the prolog-cafe library and can interpret Prolog programs at
runtime.

Interactive Prolog Cafe Shell
-----------------------------
For interactive testing and playing with Prolog, Gerrit provides the
link:pgm-prolog-shell.html[prolog-shell] program which opens an interactive
Prolog interpreter shell.

NOTE: The interactive shell is just a prolog shell, it does not load
a gerrit server environment and thus is not intended for xref:TestingSubmitRules[testing submit rules].

SWI-Prolog
----------
Instead of using the link:pgm-prolog-shell.html[prolog-shell] program one can
also use the link:http://www.swi-prolog.org/[SWI-Prolog] environment. It
provides a better shell interface and a graphical source-level debugger.

The rules.pl file
-----------------
This section explains how to create and edit project specific submit rules. How
to actually write the submit rules is explained in the next section.

Project specific submit rules are stored in the `rules.pl` file in the
`refs/meta/config` branch of that project.  Therefore, we need to fetch and
checkout the `refs/meta/config` branch in order to create or edit the `rules.pl`
file:

====
  $ git fetch origin refs/meta/config:config
  $ git checkout config
  ... edit or create the rules.pl file
  $ git add rules.pl
  $ git commit -m "My submit rules"
  $ git push origin HEAD:refs/meta/config
====

How to write submit rules
-------------------------
Whenever Gerrit needs to evaluate submit rules for a change `C` from project `P` it
will first initialize the embedded Prolog interpreter by:

* consulting a set of facts about the change `C`
* consulting the `rules.pl` from the project `P`

Conceptually we can imagine that Gerrit adds a set of facts about the change
`C` on top of the `rules.pl` file and then consults it. The set of facts about
the change `C` will look like:

====
  :- package gerrit.                                                   <1>

  commit_author(user(1000000), 'John Doe', 'john.doe@example.com').    <2>
  commit_committer(user(1000000), 'John Doe', 'john.doe@example.com'). <3>
  commit_message('Add plugin support to Gerrit').                      <4>
  ...
====

<1> Gerrit will provide its facts in a package named `gerrit`. This means we
have to use qualified names when writing our code and referencing these facts.
For example: `gerrit:commit_author(ID, N, M)`
<2> user ID, full name and email address of the commit author
<3> user ID, full name and email address of the commit committer
<4> commit message

A complete set of facts which Gerrit provides about the change is listed in the
link:prolog-change-facts.html[Prolog Facts for Gerrit Change].

By default, Gerrit will search for a `submit_rule/1` predicate in the `rules.pl`
file, evaluate the `submit_rule(X)` and then inspect the value of `X` in order
to decide whether the change is submittable or not and also to find the set of
needed criteria for the change to become submittable. This means that Gerrit has an
expectation on the format and value of the result of the `submit_rule` predicate
which is expected to be a `submit` term of the following format:

====
  submit(label(label-name, status) [, label(label-name, status)]*)
====

where `label-name` is usually `'Code-Review'` or `'Verified'` but could also
be any other string (see examples below). The `status` is one of:

* `ok(user(ID))` or just `ok(_)` if user info is not important. This status is
   used to tell that this label/category has been met.
* `need(_)` is used to tell that this label/category is needed for change to
   become submittable
* `reject(user(ID))` or just `reject(_)`. This status is used to tell that label/category
   is blocking change submission
* `impossible(_)` is used when the logic knows that the change cannot be submitted as-is.
   Administrative intervention is probably required. This is meant for cases
   where the logic requires members of "FooEng" to score "Code-Review +2" on a
   change, but nobody is in group "FooEng". It is to hint at permissions
   misconfigurations.
* `may(_)` allows expression of approval categories that are optional, i.e.
   could either be set or unset without ever influencing whether the change
   could be submitted.

NOTE: For a change to be submittable all `label` terms contained in the returned
`submit` term must have either `ok` or `may` status.

IMPORTANT: Gerrit will let the Prolog engine continue searching for solutions of
the `submit_rule(X)` query until it finds the first one where all labels in the
return result have either status `ok` or `may` or there are no more solutions.
If a solution where all labels have status `ok` is found then all previously
found solutions are ignored. Otherwise, all labels names with status `need`
from all solutions will be displayed in the UI indicating the set of conditions
needed for the change to become submittable.

Here some examples of possible return values from the `submit_rule` predicate:

====
  submit(label('Code-Review', ok(_)))                               <1>
  submit(label('Code-Review', ok(_)), label('Verified', reject(_))) <2>
  submit(label('Author-is-John-Doe', need(_))                       <3>
====

<1> label `'Code-Review'` is met. As there are no other labels in the
    return result, the change is submittable.
<2> label `'Verified'` is rejected. Change is not submittable.
<3> label `'Author-is-John-Doe'` is needed for the change to become submittable.
    Note that this tells nothing about how this criteria will be met. It is up
    to the implementor of the `submit_rule` to return `label('Author-is-John-Doe',
    ok(_))` when this criteria is met.  Most likely, it will have to match
    against `gerrit:commit_author` in order to check if this criteria is met.
    This will become clear through the examples below.

Of course, when implementing the `submit_rule` we will use the facts about the
change that are already provided by Gerrit.

Another aspect of the return result from the `submit_rule` predicate is that
Gerrit uses it to decide which set of labels to display on the change review
screen for voting. If the return result contains label `'ABC'` and if the label
`'ABC'` is one of the (global) voting categories then voting for the label
`'ABC'` will be displayed. Otherwise, it is not displayed. Note that we don't
need a (global) voting category for each label contained in the result of
`submit_rule` predicate.  For example, the decision whether `'Author-is-John-Doe'`
label is met will probably not be made by explicit voting but, instead, by
inspecting the facts about the change.

Submit Filter
-------------
Another mechanism of changing the default submit rules is to implement the
`submit_filter/2` predicate. While Gerrit will search for the `submit_rule` only
in the `rules.pl` file of the current project, the `submit_filter` will be
searched for in the `rules.pl` of all parent projects of the current project,
but not in the `rules.pl` of the current project. The search will start from the
immediate parent of the current project, then in the parent project of that
project and so on until, and including, the 'All-Projects' project.

The purpose of the submit filter is, as its name says, to filter the results
of the `submit_rule`. Therefore, the `submit_filter` predicate has two
parameters:

====
  submit_filter(In, Out) :- ...
====

Gerrit will invoke `submit_filter` with the `In` parameter containing a `submit`
structure produced by the `submit_rule` and will take the value of the `Out`
parameter as the result.

The `Out` value of a `submit_filter` will become the `In` value for the
next `submit_filter` in the parent line. The value of the `Out` parameter
of the top-most `submit_filter` is the final result of the submit rule that
is used to decide whether a change is submittable or not.

IMPORTANT: `submit_filter` is a mechanism for Gerrit administrators to implement
and enforce submit rules that would apply to all projects while `submit_rule` is
a mechanism for project owners to implement project specific submit rules.
However, project owners who own several projects could also make use of
`submit_filter` by using a common parent project for all their projects and
implementing the `submit_filter` in this common parent project. This way they
can avoid implementing the same `submit_rule` in all their projects.

The following "drawing" illustrates the order of the invocation and the chaining
of the results of the `submit_rule` and `submit_filter` predicates.

====
  All-Projects
  ^   submit_filter(B, S) :- ...  <4>
  |
  Parent-3
  ^   <no submit filter here>
  |
  Parent-2
  ^   submit_filter(A, B) :- ...  <3>
  |
  Parent-1
  ^   submit_filter(X, A) :- ...  <2>
  |
  MyProject
      submit_rule(X) :- ...       <1>
====

<1> The `submit_rule` of `MyProject` is invoked first.
<2> The result `X` is filtered through the `submit_filter` from the `Parent-1`
project.
<3> The result of `submit_filter` from `Parent-1` project is filtered by the
`submit_filter` in the `Parent-2` project. Since `Parent-3` project doesn't have
a `submit_filter` it is skipped.
<4> The result of `submit_filter` from `Parent-2` project is filtered by the
`submit_filter` in the `All-Projects` project. The value in `S` is the final
value of the submit rule evaluation.

NOTE: If `MyProject` doesn't define its own `submit_rule` Gerrit will invoke the
default implementation of submit rule that is named `gerrit:default_submit` and
its result will be filtered as described above.

[[TestingSubmitRules]]
Testing submit rules
--------------------
The prolog environment running the `submit_rule` is loaded with state describing the
change that is being evaluated. The easiest way to load this state is to test your
`submit_rule` against a real change on a running gerrit instance. The command
link:cmd-test-submit-rule.html[test-submit-rule] loads a specific change and executes
the `submit_rule`. It optionally reads the rule from from `stdin` to facilitate easy testing.

====
  cat rules.pl | ssh gerrit_srv gerrit test-submit-rule I45e080b105a50a625cc8e1fb5b357c0bfabe6d68 -s
====

Prolog vs Gerrit plugin for project specific submit rules
---------------------------------------------------------
Since version 2.5 Gerrit supports plugins and extension points. A plugin or an
extension point could also be used as another means to provide custom submit
rules. One could ask for a guideline when to use Prolog based submit rules and
when to go for writing a new plugin. Writing a Prolog program is usually much
faster than writing a Gerrit plugin. Prolog based submit rules can be pushed
to a project by project owners while Gerrit plugins could only be installed by
Gerrit administrators. In addition, Prolog based submit rules can be pushed
for review by pushing to `refs/for/refs/meta/config` branch.

On the other hand, Prolog based submit rules get a limited amount of facts about
the change exposed to them. Gerrit plugins get full access to Gerrit internals
and can potentially check more things than Prolog based rules.

Examples
--------
The following examples should serve as a cookbook for developing own submit rules.
Some of them are too trivial to be used in production and their only purpose is
to provide step by step introduction and understanding.

Some of the examples will implement the `submit_rule` and some will implement
the `submit_filter` just to show both possibilities.  Remember that
`submit_rule` is only invoked from the current project and `submit_filter` is
invoked from all parent projects. This is the most important fact in deciding
whether to implement `submit_rule` or `submit_filter`.

Example 1: Make every change submittable
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's start with a most trivial example where we would make every change submittable
regardless of the votes it has:

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(submit(label('Any-Label-Name', ok(_)))).
====

In this case we make no use of facts about the change. We don't need it as we are simply
making every change submittable. Note that, in this case, the Gerrit UI will not show
the UI for voting for the standard `'Code-Review'` and `'Verified'` categories as labels
with these names are not part of the return result. The `'Any-Label-Name'` could really
be any string.

Example 2: Every change submittable and voting in the standard categories possible
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is continuation of the previous example where, in addition, to making
every change submittable we want to enable voting in the standard
`'Code-Review'` and `'Verified'` categories.

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(submit(label('Code-Review', ok(_)), label('Verified', ok(_)))).
====

Since for every change all label statuses are `'ok'` every change will be submittable.
Voting in the standard labels will be shown in the UI as the standard label names are
included in the return result.

Example 3: Nothing is submittable
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This example shows how to make all changes non-submittable regardless of the
votes they have.

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(submit(label('Any-Label-Name', reject(_)))).
====

Since for any change we return only one label with status `reject`, no change
will be submittable. The UI will, however, not indicate what is needed for a
change to become submittable as we return no labels with status `need`.

Example 4: Nothing is submittable but UI shows several 'Need ...' criteria
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In this example no change is submittable but here we show how to present 'Need
<label>' information to the user in the UI.

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  % In the UI this will show: Need Any-Label-Name
  submit_rule(submit(label('Any-Label-Name', need(_)))).

  % We could define more "need" labels by adding more rules
  submit_rule(submit(label('Another-Label-Name', need(_)))).

  % or by providing more than one need label in the same rule
  submit_rule(submit(label('X-Label-Name', need(_)), label('Y-Label-Name', need(_)))).
====

In the UI this will show:
****
* Need Any-Label-Name
* Need Another-Label-Name
* Need X-Label-Name
* Need Y-Label-Name
****

From the example above we can see a few more things:

* comment in Prolog starts with the `%` character
* there could be multiple `submit_rule` predicates. Since Prolog, by default, tries to find
  all solutions for a query, the result will be union of all solutions.
  Therefore, we see all 4 `need` labels in the UI.

Example 5: The 'Need ...' labels not shown when change is submittable
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This example shows that, when there is a solution for `submit_rule(X)` where all labels
have status `ok` then Gerrit will not show any labels with the `need` status from
any of the previous `submit_rule(X)` solutions.

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(label('Some-Condition', need(_))).
  submit_rule(label('Another-Condition', ok(_))).
====

The 'Need Some-Condition' will not be show in the UI because of the result of
the second rule.

The same is valid if the two rules are swapped:

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(label('Another-Condition', ok(_))).
  submit_rule(label('Some-Condition', need(_))).
====

The result of the first rule will stop search for any further solutions.

Example 6: Make change submittable if commit author is "John Doe"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is the first example where we will use the Prolog facts about a change that
are automatically exposed by Gerrit. Our goal is to make any change submittable
when the commit author is named `'John Doe'`. In the very first
step let's make sure Gerrit UI shows 'Need Author-is-John-Doe' in
the UI to clearly indicate to the user what is needed for a change to become
submittable:

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(submit(label('Author-is-John-Doe', need(_)))).
====

This will show:
****
* Need Author-is-John-Doe
****

in the UI but no change will be submittable yet. Let's add another rule:

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(submit(label('Author-is-John-Doe', need(_)))).
  submit_rule(submit(label('Author-is-John-Doe', ok(_))))
    :- gerrit:commit_author(_, 'John Doe', _).
====

In the second rule we return `ok` status for the `'Author-is-John-Doe'` label
if there is a `commit_author` fact where the full name is `'John Doe'`. If
author of a change is `'John Doe'` then the second rule will return a solution
where all labels have `ok` status and the change will become submittable. If
author of a change is not `'John Doe'` then only the first rule will produce a
solution. The UI will show 'Need Author-is-John-Doe' but, as expected, the
change will not be submittable.

Instead of checking by full name we could also check by the email address:

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(submit(label('Author-is-John-Doe', need(_)))).
  submit_rule(submit(label('Author-is-John-Doe', ok(_))))
    :- gerrit:commit_author(_, _, 'john.doe@example.com').
====

or by user id (assuming it is 1000000):

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(submit(label('Author-is-John-Doe', need(_)))).
  submit_rule(submit(label('Author-is-John-Doe', ok(_))))
    :- gerrit:commit_author(user(1000000), _, _).
====

or by a combination of these 3 attributes:

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(submit(label('Author-is-John-Doe', need(_)))).
  submit_rule(submit(label('Author-is-John-Doe', ok(_))))
    :- gerrit:commit_author(_, 'John Doe', 'john.doe@example.com').
====

Example 7: Make change submittable if commit message starts with "Trivial fix"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Besides showing how to make use of the commit message text the purpose of this
example is also to show how to match only a part of a string symbol. Similarly
like commit author the commit message is provided as a string symbol which is
an atom in Prolog terms. When working with an atom we could only match against
the whole value. To match only part of a string symbol we have, at least, two
options:

* convert the string symbol into a list of characters and then perform
  the "classical" list matching
* use the `regex_matches/2` or, even more convenient, the
  `gerrit:commit_message_matches/1` predicate

Let's implement both options:

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(submit(label('Commit-Message-starts-with-Trivial-Fix', need(_)))).
  submit_rule(submit(label('Commit-Message-starts-with-Trivial-Fix', ok(_))))
    :- gerrit:commit_message(M), name(M, L), starts_with(L, "Trivial Fix").

  starts_with(L, []).
  starts_with([H|T1], [H|T2]) :- starts_with(T1, T2).
====

NOTE: The `name/2` embedded predicate is used to convert a string symbol into a
list of characters. A string `abc` is converted into a list of characters `[97,
98, 99]`.  A double quoted string in Prolog is just a shortcut for creating a
list of characters. `"abc"` is a shortcut for `[97, 98, 99]`. This is why we use
double quotes for the `"Trivial Fix"` in the example above.

The `starts_with` predicate is self explaining.

Using the `gerrit:commit_message_matches` predicate is probably more efficient:

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(submit(label('Commit-Message-starts-with-Trivial-Fix', need(_)))).
  submit_rule(submit(label('Commit-Message-starts-with-Trivial-Fix', ok(_))))
    :- gerrit:commit_message_matches('^Trivial Fix').
====

Reusing the default submit policy
---------------------------------
All examples until now concentrate on one particular aspect of change data.
However, in real-life scenarios we would rather want to reuse Gerrit's default
submit policy and extend/change it for our specific purpose. In other words, we
would like to keep all the default policies (like the `Verified` category,
vetoing change, etc...) and only extend/change an aspect of it. For example, we
may want to disable the ability for change authors to approve their own changes
but keep all other policies the same.

To get results of Gerrits default submit policy we use the
`gerrit:default_submit` predicate. This means that if we write a submit rule like:

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(X) :- gerrit:default_submit(X).
====

then this is equivalent to not using `rules.pl` at all. We just delegate to
default logic. However, once we invoke the `gerrit:default_submit(X)` we can
perform further actions on the return result `X` and apply our specific
logic. The following pattern illustrates this technique:

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(S) :- gerrit:default_submit(R), project_specific_policy(R, S).

  project_specific_policy(R, S) :- ...
====

The following examples build on top of the default submit policy.

Example 8: Make change submittable only if `Code-Review+2` is given by a non author
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In this example we introduce a new label `Non-Author-Code-Review` and make it
satisfied if there is at least one `Code-Review+2` from a non author. All other
default policies like the `Verified` category and vetoing changes still apply.

First, we invoke `gerrit:default_submit` to compute the result for the default
submit policy and then add the `Non-Author-Code-Review` label to it.  The
`Non-Author-Code-Review` label is added with status `ok` if such an approval
exists or with status `need` if it doesn't exist.

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(S) :-
    gerrit:default_submit(X),
    X =.. [submit | Ls],
    add_non_author_approval(Ls, R),
    S =.. [submit | R].

  add_non_author_approval(S1, S2) :-
    gerrit:commit_author(A), gerrit:commit_label(label('Code-Review', 2), R),
    R \= A, !,
    S2 = [label('Non-Author-Code-Review', ok(R)) | S1].
  add_non_author_approval(S1, [label('Non-Author-Code-Review', need(_)) | S1]).
====

This example uses the `univ` operator `=..` to "unpack" the result of the
default_submit, which is a structure of the form `submit(label('Code-Review',
ok(_)), label('Verified', need(_)) ...)` into a list like `[submit,
label('Code-Review', ok(_)), label('Verified', need(_)), ...]`.  Then we
process the tail of the list (the list of labels) as a Prolog list, which is
much easier than processing a structure. In the end we use the same `univ`
operator to convert the resulting list of labels back into a `submit` structure
which is expected as a return result. The `univ` operator works both ways.

In `add_non_author_approval` we use the `cut` operator `!` to prevent Prolog
from searching for more solutions once the `cut` point is reached. This is
important because in the second `add_non_author_approval` rule we just add the
`label('Non-Author-Code-Review', need(_))` without first checking that there
is no non author `Code-Review+2`. The second rule will only be reached
if the `cut` in the first rule is not reached and it only happens if a
predicate before the `cut` fails.

Example 9: Remove the `Verified` category
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A project has no build and test. It consists of only text files and needs only
code review.  We want to remove the `Verified` category from this project so
that `Code-Review+2` is the only criteria for a change to become submittable.
We also want the UI to not show the `Verified` category in the table with
votes and on the voting screen.

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(S) :-
    gerrit:default_submit(X),
    X =.. [submit | Ls],
    remove_verified_category(Ls, R),
    S =.. [submit | R].

  remove_verified_category([], []).
  remove_verified_category([label('Verified', _) | T], R) :- remove_verified_category(T, R), !.
  remove_verified_category([H|T], [H|R]) :- remove_verified_category(T, R).
====

Example 10: Combine examples 8 and 9
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In this example we want to both remove the verified and have the four eyes
principle.  This means we want a combination of examples 7 and 8.

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(S) :-
    gerrit:default_submit(X),
    X =.. [submit | Ls],
    remove_verified_category(Ls, R1),
    add_non_author_approval(R1, R),
    S =.. [submit | R].
====

The `remove_verified_category` and `add_non_author_approval` predicates are the
same as defined in the previous two examples.

Example 11: Remove the `Verified` category from all projects
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Example 9, implements `submit_rule` that removes the `Verified` category from
one project. In this example we do the same but we want to remove the `Verified`
category from all projects. This means we have to implement `submit_filter` and
we have to do that in the `rules.pl` of the `All-Projects` project.

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_filter(In, Out) :-
    In =.. [submit | Ls],
    remove_verified_category(Ls, R),
    Out =.. [submit | R].

  remove_verified_category([], []).
  remove_verified_category([label('Verified', _) | T], R) :-
    remove_verified_category(T, R), !.
  remove_verified_category([H|T], [H|R]) :- remove_verified_category(T, R).
====

Example 12: 1+1=2 Code-Review
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In this example we introduce accumulative voting to determine if a change is
submittable or not. We modify the standard Code-Review to be accumulative, and make the
change submittable if the total score is 2 or higher.

The code in this example is very similar to Example 8, with the addition of findall/3
and gerrit:remove_label.
The findall/3 embedded predicate is used to form a list of all objects that satisfy a
specified Goal. In this example it is used to get a list of all the 'Code-Review' scores.
gerrit:remove_label is a built-in helper that is implemented similarly to the
'remove_verified_category' as seen in the previous example.

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  sum_list([], 0).
  sum_list([H | Rest], Sum) :- sum_list(Rest,Tmp), Sum is H + Tmp.

  add_category_min_score(In, Category, Min,  P) :-
    findall(X, gerrit:commit_label(label(Category,X),R),Z),
    sum_list(Z, Sum),
    Sum >= Min, !,
    P = [label(Category,ok(R)) | In].

  add_category_min_score(In, Category,Min,P) :-
    P = [label(Category,need(Min)) | In].

  submit_rule(S) :-
    gerrit:default_submit(X),
    X =.. [submit | Ls],
    gerrit:remove_label(Ls,label('Code-Review',_),NoCR),
    add_category_min_score(NoCR,'Code-Review', 2, Labels),
    S =.. [submit | Labels].
====

Example 13: Master and apprentice
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The master and apprentice example allow you to specify a user (the `master`)
that must approve all changes done by another user (the `apprentice`).

The code first checks if the commit author is in the apprentice database.
If the commit is done by an apprentice, it will check if there is a +2
review by the associated `master`.

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  % master_apprentice(Master, Apprentice).
  % Extend this with appropriate user-id's for your master/apprentice setup.
  master_apprentice(user(1000064), user(1000000)).

  submit_rule(S) :-
    gerrit:default_submit(In),
    In =.. [submit | Ls],
    add_apprentice_master(Ls, R),
    S =.. [submit | R].

  check_master_approval(S1, S2, Master) :-
    gerrit:commit_label(label('Code-Review', 2), R),
    R = Master, !,
    S2 = [label('Master-Approval', ok(R)) | S1].
  check_master_approval(S1, [label('Master-Approval', need(_)) | S1], _).

  add_apprentice_master(S1, S2) :-
    gerrit:commit_author(Id),
    master_apprentice(Master, Id),
    !,
    check_master_approval(S1, S2, Master).

  add_apprentice_master(S, S).
====

Example 14: Only allow Author to submit change
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This example adds a new needed category `Patchset-Author` for any user that is
not the author of the patch. This effectively blocks all users except the author
from submitting the change. This could result in an impossible situation if the
author does not have permissions for submitting the change.

.rules.pl
[caption=""]
====
  submit_rule(S) :-
    gerrit:default_submit(In),
    In =.. [submit | Ls],
    only_allow_author_to_submit(Ls, R),
    S =.. [submit | R].

  only_allow_author_to_submit(S, S) :-
    gerrit:commit_author(Id),
    gerrit:current_user(Id),
    !.

  only_allow_author_to_submit(S1, [label('Patchset-Author', need(_)) | S1]).
====

GERRIT
------
Part of link:index.html[Gerrit Code Review]