983: Github commit links 404

[erikj79]

Sometimes our abbreviated commit web links on Github are not working. My guess is that this is caused by collisions. I think the correct fix here is to stop abbreviating commit hashes in links. Github internal links seem to always be full hashes, while pretty printing the link text with an abbreviation. We should adopt the same basic principle.

---

Progress

• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

• SKARA-983: Github commit links 404

Reviewers

• Tim Bell (@tbell29552 - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to 4304997
• Robin Westberg (@rwestberg - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to 4304997
• Erik Helin (@edvbld - Reviewer)
• Kevin Rushforth (@kevinrushforth - no project role)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/1136/head:pull/1136
$ git checkout pull/1136

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/1136
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/1136/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 1136

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 1136

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/1136.diff

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back erikj! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 02: Full - Incremental (acc9f283)
• 01: Full - Incremental (52e7b972)
• 00: Full (43049974)

[openjdk]

@erikj79 This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

🔍 One or more changes in this pull request modifies files in areas of the source code that often require two reviewers. Please consider if this is the case for this pull request, and if so, await a second reviewer to approve this pull request before you integrate it.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

983: Github commit links 404

Reviewed-by: tbell, rwestberg, ehelin, kcr

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 4 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 4d271a0: 993: Stuck merge PR (Panama)
• f084dc2: 941: Warn about required merge after dependent PR integration
• 1b3f3f0: 991: Add 8u270 to the hgupdater exclusion list
• 0d49a4d: forge: GitHubRepository.canPush might return 404

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the master branch.
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

[kevinrushforth]

Conceptually, this looks like the right fix to me. A couple questions:

1. Do all places that generate a commit URL use the webUrl method?
2. Are there any places that extract the printed name from the URL (if so, those would now print the full 40 char hash)?
3. Are there place other than IssueNotifer::onNewCommits where you might need to check for old versus new hashes? I think this would only be a problem if there were other similar places that checked whether the URL had already been seen.
4. Are there any tests that need to be updated (or written)?

[rwestberg]

Looks good! Perhaps you have run the tests locally, but couldn't hurt to enable the GitHub Actions to make sure there isn't some odd dependency on the short format left somewhere. :)

[erikj79]

1. Do all places that generate a commit URL use the webUrl method?

From what I can tell, yes.

2. Are there any places that extract the printed name from the URL (if so, those would now print the full 40 char hash)?
   In bug comments, we typically print the full URL and let Jira interpret it as a link (with the full URL as link text). In other

places, like in Jira links, we already generate our own link text, and Github/Gitlab seems to recognize these links and generate their own link text for them.

3. Are there place other than IssueNotifer::onNewCommits where you might need to check for old versus new hashes? I think this would only be a problem if there were other similar places that checked whether the URL had already been seen.

I searched for all uses of the webUrl method to look at what it was used for. This was the only usage that wasn't just adding the link to some kind of message.

4. Are there any tests that need to be updated (or written)?

All tests ran successfully so nothing need changing. Perhaps I should add a test case for the parsing of existing URLs in comments.

Erik D asked me to run this on staging for a bit (which will affect reviews in the Skara project) so we can see how it works.

[edvbld]

Looks good

[erikj79]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@erikj79 Since your change was applied there have been 4 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 4d271a0: 993: Stuck merge PR (Panama)
• f084dc2: 941: Warn about required merge after dependent PR integration
• 1b3f3f0: 991: Add 8u270 to the hgupdater exclusion list
• 0d49a4d: forge: GitHubRepository.canPush might return 404

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit 75a8a62.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.