Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

do not comment on PRs, instead store output as logs #447

Merged

Conversation

@TomasTomecek
Copy link
Contributor

TomasTomecek commented Mar 2, 2020

Related #168
Fixes #416

TODO:

  • kinda finish the code
  • unit tests are passing
  • fix integration tests
  • tests: create expectations for the new behaviour
  • get this reviewed by @dhodovsk
  • get this reviewed by @lachmanfrantisek

I completely rewrote how we handle errors and failures during the srpm creation process - please let me know how I should polish it.

@softwarefactory-project-zuul

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Mar 2, 2020

Build failed.

Copy link
Member

lachmanfrantisek left a comment

Looks good. I like the number of removed lines..;)

packit_service/worker/build/copr_build.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@TomasTomecek TomasTomecek force-pushed the TomasTomecek:no-comment branch from a05b552 to 4fba2a5 Mar 2, 2020
@TomasTomecek TomasTomecek changed the title WIP: do not comment on PRs, instead store output as logs do not comment on PRs, instead store output as logs Mar 2, 2020
@softwarefactory-project-zuul

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Mar 2, 2020

Build failed.

@TomasTomecek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

TomasTomecek commented Mar 2, 2020

ogr or packit are breaking the tests -_-

with last week's image the tests were passing locally

Copy link
Member

lachmanfrantisek left a comment

Except for the last commit message, LGTM...

@TomasTomecek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

TomasTomecek commented Mar 2, 2020

@lachmanfrantisek the last commit wouldn't happen if we gated packit PRs on p-s' test results - hence I'd say the commit message is pretty irrelevant since it's really about just fixing tests - which it clearly says, whatever the error was

Copy link
Contributor

lbarcziova left a comment

LGTM 🚀

@softwarefactory-project-zuul

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Mar 2, 2020

Build succeeded.

@lachmanfrantisek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

lachmanfrantisek commented Mar 2, 2020

@lachmanfrantisek the last commit wouldn't happen if we gated packit PRs on p-s' test results - hence I'd say the commit message is pretty irrelevant since it's really about just fixing tests - which it clearly says, whatever the error was

I just wanted to point out that the commit (not the content) is unnecessary -- e.g. squash?

I am not against the gating of packit with p-s tests...;) I can find only OGR issue, do we have one in packit?

@TomasTomecek TomasTomecek added the mergeit label Mar 2, 2020
@TomasTomecek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

TomasTomecek commented Mar 2, 2020

I just wanted to point out that the commit (not the content) is unnecessary -- e.g. squash?

but I'm 100% sure that those test fixes are not related to the main purpose of this PR, hence new commit

I am not against the gating of packit with p-s tests...;) I can find only OGR issue, do we have one in packit?

afaik we have it in jira in the testing epic and there is no upstream issue for that sadly :/

TomasTomecek added 3 commits Mar 2, 2020
Signed-off-by: Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek@redhat.com>
packit changed, p-s needs to adapt

Signed-off-by: Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek@redhat.com>
@TomasTomecek TomasTomecek force-pushed the TomasTomecek:no-comment branch from 4519beb to eae8f4a Mar 2, 2020
@softwarefactory-project-zuul

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Mar 2, 2020

Build succeeded.

@softwarefactory-project-zuul

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Mar 2, 2020

Build succeeded (gate pipeline).

@softwarefactory-project-zuul softwarefactory-project-zuul bot merged commit 1e378b5 into packit-service:master Mar 2, 2020
4 checks passed
4 checks passed
LGTM analysis: Python No new or fixed alerts
Details
ci/dockercloud (/Dockerfile.worker) Your tests passed in Docker Cloud
Details
local/check check status: success
Details
local/gate gate status: success
Details
@lachmanfrantisek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

lachmanfrantisek commented Mar 3, 2020

but I'm 100% sure that those test fixes are not related to the main purpose of this PR, hence new commit

Sorry for nitpicking. I only don't like these dummy commits -- either add a meaningful message or squash. (I ask about that since we discuss that topic two weeks ago with the team..;)

afaik we have it in jira in the testing epic and there is no upstream issue for that sadly :/

Here it is: packit-service/packit#742

@TomasTomecek TomasTomecek deleted the TomasTomecek:no-comment branch Mar 3, 2020
@TomasTomecek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

TomasTomecek commented Mar 3, 2020

@lachmanfrantisek yes, I understand, but I still like to organize code so that commits represent "atomic" changes - fixing tests which got broken by something NOT related to my change is the exact content I don't want to have in the "main" commit; I mean even if I created a new PR with the test fixes, I'd have name it the same honestly :D but it's true that the commit message could have hold the proper error message, I'll try to improve in future

so, more heated discussion on retro then :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.