docs: modernize BrewTestBot info for maintainers #16634
Conversation
|
|
||
| If a pull request won't be automatically merged by Brew Test Bot (has the labels `do not merge`, `new formula`, or `automerge-skip`), but the [commit messages and commit style](Formula-Cookbook.md#commit) are correct: | ||
| If a pull request won't be automatically merged by BrewTestBot (has the labels `autosquash`, `automerge-skip`, or`new formula`, or has some kind of acceptable CI failure): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The goal is to never have failing CI, and I assume we don't have documented what's an „acceptable CI failure”, so I don't think it is useful to mention here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe new formula require manual intervention at the moment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree that having failing CI is never ideal, but in this case I'm thinking about things like: checksum mismatches that have been verified, new formula that we are waiving the notability requirement for, etc. The alternative would be setting up flags for BrewTestBot to ignore all the different types of "acceptable" failures we currently see.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The alternative would be setting up flags for BrewTestBot to ignore all the different types of "acceptable" failures we currently see.
I mean that's how it already works for casks using ci-* labels.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, and we have some of that in core. I just don't think it's currently as comprehensive. @MikeMcQuaid has been prodding us to move toward a "no red CI" approach, so this may be the time to figure out any remaining instances of this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This may be a good candidate for a "repo admins can merge" branch protection and we limit this to TSC.
Also: we should consider pulling these "flaky audits" into a separate job that can be non-required.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also also: if we have known flaky audits that are unfixed: this should be tracked in an issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's not really known flaky per se but more along the lines of say the formula homepage (but not source) temporarily goes down during a long build, which is something that's silly to perform a rebuild over. The nature of the internet means these things happen.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeh, I think we should consider pulling all these sorts of audits into another job (also because they are not OS dependent).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's not really known flaky per se but more along the lines of say the formula homepage (but not source) temporarily goes down during a long build, which is something that's silly to perform a rebuild over. The nature of the internet means these things happen.
Strongly agree with this for homepage, livecheck, etc.
p-linnane
force-pushed
the
btb-maintainer-doc-update
branch
from
3b75dd6
to
dbcd42f
Compare
| @@ -1,23 +1,26 @@ | |||
| # Brew Test Bot for Maintainers | |||
| # BrewTestBot for Maintainers | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would be nice to make filename and title consistent (in either direction, don't mind)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I plan to rename the file after we agree on changes, since it screws the diff up since it's a "new file".
Signed-off-by: Patrick Linnane <patrick@linnane.io> Co-authored-by: Mike McQuaid <mike@mikemcquaid.com>
p-linnane
force-pushed
the
btb-maintainer-doc-update
branch
from
858f491
to
bf050bc
Compare
brew stylewith your changes locally?brew typecheckwith your changes locally?brew testswith your changes locally?I happened to notice that this document was very out of date for our current state. I also planned to change the filename to include "BrewTestBot" instead of "Brew Test Bot" but wanted to keep the diff clean since there are many changes here. Can follow up with that on later.