You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 10, 2022. It is now read-only.
Directory contains both passed and notCompliantWithLatestRules files. Fmi-Tools-Listing shows corresponding case still as validated (btw, results are way off, so 'failed' would have been the appropriate rating).
Currently, the webpage display does not allow to distinguish between "had been validated with previous set of cross-check-rules" and "does comply to current cross-check-rules".
Suggest: add special handling in validate_vendor_repo script.
Problem appears to be in lines 277-278:validate_vendor_repo.py where
notCompliant... file is only tested for, when running with cleanup and when problems were found.
Maybe the check for 'notComplient' could be moved ahead and the test case should be skipped alltogether if the file is present?
(Note to self: I guess I have to read up on the discussion on that issue in the meeting notes... :-) )
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
For example:
results/2.0/cs/linux64/SIMPACK/9.10.1/JModelica.org/1.15/ControlledTemperature/
Directory contains both
passed
andnotCompliantWithLatestRules
files. Fmi-Tools-Listing shows corresponding case still as validated (btw, results are way off, so 'failed' would have been the appropriate rating).Currently, the webpage display does not allow to distinguish between "had been validated with previous set of cross-check-rules" and "does comply to current cross-check-rules".
Suggest: add special handling in validate_vendor_repo script.
Problem appears to be in lines 277-278:validate_vendor_repo.py where
notCompliant... file is only tested for, when running with cleanup and when problems were found.
Maybe the check for 'notComplient' could be moved ahead and the test case should be skipped alltogether if the file is present?
(Note to self: I guess I have to read up on the discussion on that issue in the meeting notes... :-) )
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: