[Rev 04] RFR: 6640: Run spotless and tests as part of the workflow

[Marcus Hirt]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 16:15:41 GMT, Robin Westberg <rwestberg at openjdk.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 13:22:47 GMT, Marcus Hirt <hirt at openjdk.org> wrote:
> 
>> The pull request has been updated with additional changes.
>> 
>> ----------------
>> 
>> Added commits:
>>  - c41f5c0f: Making the .gitignore better whilst forcing a rerun to ensure that passing on all platforms was more than a lucky break
>> 
>> Changes:
>>   - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jmc/pull/10/files
>>   - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jmc/pull/10/files/e2d8a1d7..c41f5c0f
>> 
>> Webrevs:
>>  - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/jmc/10/webrev.04
>>  - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/jmc/10/webrev.03-04
>> 
>>   Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JMC-6640
>>   Stats: 11 lines in 1 file changed: 11 ins; 0 del; 0 mod
>>   Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jmc/pull/10.diff
>>   Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jmc pull/10/head:pull/10
> 
> Looks good to me! I'm not an expert in this area, but I think it's pretty much how you do it. You could probably combine the identical mac and linux steps with some more advanced syntax, but not sure it's worth it.
> 
> .jcheck/conf line 41:
> 
>> 40: [checks]
>> 41: error=author,reviewers,merge,message,issues
>> 42: 
> 
> If you want to retain the executable check, you could prefix the commands with `sh`..
> 
> ----------------
> 
> Approved by rwestberg (no project role).

Ok. I find it convenient to have these scripts executable locally. I have no real strong opinions on this though. If someone cares strongly either way, please let me know.

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jmc/pull/10