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

feat: parse workflow data to determine errors #5157

Merged
merged 22 commits into from
Apr 15, 2024

Conversation

thisislawatts
Copy link
Member

@thisislawatts thisislawatts commented Apr 10, 2024

Pull Request Submission

Please check the boxes once done.

The pull request must:

  • Reviewer Documentation
    • follow CONTRIBUTING rules
    • be accompanied by a detailed description of the changes
    • contain a risk assessment of the change (Low | Medium | High) with regards to breaking existing functionality. A change e.g. of an underlying language plugin can completely break the functionality for that language, but appearing as only a version change in the dependencies.
    • highlight breaking API if applicable
    • contain a link to the automatic tests that cover the updated functionality.
    • contain testing instructions in case that the reviewer wants to manual verify as well, to add to the manual testing done by the author.
    • link to the link to the PR for the User-facing documentation
  • User facing Documentation
    • update any relevant documentation in gitbook by submitting a gitbook PR, and including the PR link here
    • ensure that the message of the final single commit is descriptive and prefixed with either feat: or fix: , others might be used in rare occasions as well, if there is no need to document the changes in the release notes. The changes or fixes should be described in detail in the commit message for the changelog & release notes.
  • Testing
    • Changes, removals and additions to functionality must be covered by acceptance / integration tests or smoke tests - either already existing ones, or new ones, created by the author of the PR.

Pull Request Review

All pull requests must undergo a thorough review process before being merged.
The review process of the code PR should include code review, testing, and any necessary feedback or revisions.
Pull request reviews of functionality developed in other teams only review the given documentation and test reports.

Manual testing will not be performed by the reviewing team, and is the responsibility of the author of the PR.

For Node projects: It’s important to make sure changes in package.json are also affecting package-lock.json correctly.

If a dependency is not necessary, don’t add it.

When adding a new package as a dependency, make sure that the change is absolutely necessary. We would like to refrain from adding new dependencies when possible.
Documentation PRs in gitbook are reviewed by Snyk's content team. They will also advise on the best phrasing and structuring if needed.

Pull Request Approval

Once a pull request has been reviewed and all necessary revisions have been made, it is approved for merging into
the main codebase. The merging of the code PR is performed by the code owners, the merging of the documentation PR
by our content writers.

What does this PR do?

Allows exit code to be affected by data payloads generated as part of workflows.

Where should the reviewer start?

How should this be manually tested?

Any background context you want to provide?

What are the relevant tickets?

@thisislawatts thisislawatts force-pushed the feat/parse-workflow-data-to-determine-errors branch from 5a4404b to ac2e0d9 Compare April 10, 2024 12:06
if strings.EqualFold(mimeType, "application/json; type=snyk-test-summary") {
singleData, ok := data[i].GetPayload().([]byte)
if !ok {
return fmt.Errorf("invalid payload type: %T", data[i].GetPayload())
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nitpick: For error messages to be a bit more self explanatory maybe mention what failed and then the why.

@thisislawatts thisislawatts force-pushed the feat/parse-workflow-data-to-determine-errors branch 2 times, most recently from 285917a to e999cf6 Compare April 12, 2024 13:47
@thisislawatts thisislawatts marked this pull request as ready for review April 12, 2024 13:51
@thisislawatts thisislawatts requested a review from a team as a code owner April 12, 2024 13:51
@thisislawatts thisislawatts force-pushed the feat/parse-workflow-data-to-determine-errors branch from 508289a to 00b5b23 Compare April 12, 2024 14:53
@j-luong j-luong force-pushed the feat/parse-workflow-data-to-determine-errors branch from 1d170d1 to 00b5b23 Compare April 12, 2024 15:49
@thisislawatts thisislawatts force-pushed the feat/parse-workflow-data-to-determine-errors branch 4 times, most recently from 2f650c7 to 8ecb782 Compare April 12, 2024 21:31
@thisislawatts thisislawatts force-pushed the feat/parse-workflow-data-to-determine-errors branch 2 times, most recently from 25a2faa to ba5c029 Compare April 15, 2024 14:05
@thisislawatts thisislawatts force-pushed the feat/parse-workflow-data-to-determine-errors branch from ba5c029 to 340cdac Compare April 15, 2024 14:53
@PeterSchafer PeterSchafer force-pushed the feat/parse-workflow-data-to-determine-errors branch from 7a9eec7 to f85ca30 Compare April 15, 2024 15:20
Copy link
Contributor

@PeterSchafer PeterSchafer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please address the open comments.

@thisislawatts thisislawatts merged commit 51c717b into main Apr 15, 2024
16 checks passed
@thisislawatts thisislawatts deleted the feat/parse-workflow-data-to-determine-errors branch April 15, 2024 19:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
2 participants