-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 561
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
check-commit-email: do not fail when current dir is not under git #11281
check-commit-email: do not fail when current dir is not under git #11281
Conversation
The check fails with a source tarball, like the one used during spread tests. ``` Error: 2022-01-21 07:44:44 Error executing google:ubuntu-20.04-64:tests/unit/go (jan210735-282406) : ----- ... Obtaining c-dependencies HEAD is now at 74f4fe8 Merge pull request snapcore#63 from vasi/vasi-win-ci Checking docs fatal: not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git Traceback (most recent call last): File "./check-commit-email.py", line 42, in <module> commitrange = get_commit_range() File "./check-commit-email.py", line 22, in get_commit_range lines = subprocess.check_output( File "/usr/lib/python3.8/subprocess.py", line 415, in check_output return run(*popenargs, stdout=PIPE, timeout=timeout, check=True, File "/usr/lib/python3.8/subprocess.py", line 516, in run raise CalledProcessError(retcode, process.args, subprocess.CalledProcessError: Command '['git', 'cat-file', '-p', '@']' returned non-zero exit status 128. Crushing failure and despair. ``` Signed-off-by: Maciej Borzecki <maciej.zenon.borzecki@canonical.com>
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #11281 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 78.24% 78.24%
=======================================
Files 927 927
Lines 105872 105872
=======================================
+ Hits 82837 82844 +7
+ Misses 17881 17875 -6
+ Partials 5154 5153 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, I guess you could add the skip-spread label too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Nice catch! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thanks for fixing this
The check fails with a source tarball, like the one used during spread tests.