From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 4 12:33:57 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 12:33:57 GMT Subject: RFR: 384: Suggest issue command instead of solves command Message-ID: Hi all, Please review this minor change that suggest the `issue` command instead of `solves`. Best regards, Robin ------------- Commit messages: - Prefer issue command over solves Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/616/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/616/webrev.00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/SKARA-384 Stats: 6 lines in 2 files changed: 0 ins; 2 del; 4 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/616.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/616/head:pull/616 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/616 From robin.westberg at oracle.com Mon May 4 13:12:32 2020 From: robin.westberg at oracle.com (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 15:12:32 +0200 Subject: Email subject line formatting In-Reply-To: <20200422102317.318371634@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <3b83157d-3570-129f-d4a7-028c6872885d@oracle.com> <20200414113234.9902763@eggemoggin.niobe.net> <70afb55c-7f19-5b55-b33f-ff17099fc907@oracle.com> <20200422102317.318371634@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <3D560F2E-B5F6-4656-9C53-80AFA66239A9@oracle.com> Hi all, Before I start making changes, I?ll try to summarize what I think the current consensus looks like. But first a few inline comments: > On 22 Apr 2020, at 19:23, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > > 2020/4/17 2:58:18 -0700, magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com: >> On 2020-04-17 10:46, Erik Helin wrote: >>> ... >>> >>> Both me and Robin are personally fine with rewriting the subject line >>> more aggressively, we both use MUAs that thread based on the >>> "In-Reply-To" and "References" headers. I would just like to point out >>> that several MUAs do *not* thread solely on the "In-Reply-To" and >>> "References" headers, the most notable one being the Gmail browser >>> based MUA accessible at https://www.gmail.com. >> >> Well, screw them. They can always use emacs instead. ;-) >> >> But seriously, would gmail have problem handling a thread properly if >> you change the subject to be prefixed "Integrated: JDK-xxx ..." rather >> than "Re: [integrated] RFR: JDK-xxx ..."? It could be worth testing. If >> this special case is handled ok, then it's not really an issue if the >> general threading is borked by gmail. > > Let?s not do the wrong thing just to appease a broken MUA, no matter how > popular it might be. Right, I have performed various tests here, and the conclusion is that any change of the subject, except for inserting ?Re: ? at the beginning (as well as a few localized versions, such as the Swedish variant Sv: for example) will make that MUA split a thread. So I also agree it?s not really worth taking into account. >>> ... >>> >>> Now, what are those e-mails prefixed with "FYI" that Magnus mentioned? >>> We use the "FYI" prefix instead of "RFR" when the bots send an email >>> for a pull request that has already been integrated. Since the bots >>> are polling they might encounter a pull request that was very quickly >>> integrated. This is most likely to happen for OpenJDK projects that do >>> not require reviews, where Committers can integrate their own pull >>> requests as soon as they are created (given that they pass jcheck). > > So, theoretically, if the bots didn?t poll but were perfectly in sync > with GitHub then these ?FYI? messages wouldn?t be needed? That?s not strictly true actually, the main source of delay here is that the bots are configured to wait a few minutes after the last update to a pull request body or comment before bridging it to a mailing list. This is to capture any quick last-minute edits, something which we have seen is reasonably common. ? >> This would perhaps >> mean that the "git:" update mail would not be needed for those projects, >> since it would just duplicate this information. > > I think there?s still value in the ?git:? style messages, particularly > for people who want to follow the stream of updates to a repo without > having to scan every RFR thread for a terminal ?Integrated? message. Yes, I also think we should keep these separate. As it stands now, the ?git:? messages are serviced through a different bot, to ensure that these work fine even for projects that mostly do not use pull requests (like Loom). So in summary, these are the changes that I think we agree on: - Normally, pull request emails are prefixed with ?RFR:? - Comments made in the pull request are prefixed ?Re: RFR:" - If the pull request is already integrated when the mail is generated, the prefix of the initial mail is ?Integrated:? (changed from ?Re: [Integrated] RFR:?) - When integration happens, a reply to the original RFR mail is sent with the prefix ?Integrated:" - Further comments on an already integrated pull request are prefixed ?Re: Integrated:? There are a few more subject rewriting actions that happen as well: If a pull request is closed without being integrated (a.k.a withdrawn), the prefix currently is "Re: [Closed] RFR:? - perhaps change this to ?Closed:?? An incremental update to a pull request creates a direct reply to the initial RFR mail, with the prefix ?Re: [Rev 02] RFR:?. Further comments to the new changes are then threaded as replies to this mail. This makes it easy to see which revision a comment refers to. An option here that may look more similar to the new subjects would be ?RFR: v2:? or similar. Thoughts? Also, the changes will only affect the subjects of the generated emails - the threading headers will remain the same. Or are there any additional concerns or thoughts about how to arrange them to improve readability in thread-capable MUAs (such as the web archive)? I guess that could also be improved later. Best regards, Robin > > - Mark From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 4 14:12:57 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 14:12:57 GMT Subject: RFR: 381: Retry failed materialization of hosted repository storage Message-ID: Hi all, Please review this change that improves the reliability of the initial materialization of hosted repository storage. Best regards, Robin ------------- Commit messages: - Retry materialization of hosted repository storage Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/617/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/617/webrev.00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/SKARA-381 Stats: 33 lines in 1 file changed: 13 ins; 8 del; 12 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/617.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/617/head:pull/617 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/617 From magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com Wed May 6 07:54:13 2020 From: magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com (Magnus Ihse Bursie) Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 09:54:13 +0200 Subject: Email subject line formatting In-Reply-To: <3D560F2E-B5F6-4656-9C53-80AFA66239A9@oracle.com> References: <3b83157d-3570-129f-d4a7-028c6872885d@oracle.com> <20200414113234.9902763@eggemoggin.niobe.net> <70afb55c-7f19-5b55-b33f-ff17099fc907@oracle.com> <20200422102317.318371634@eggemoggin.niobe.net> <3D560F2E-B5F6-4656-9C53-80AFA66239A9@oracle.com> Message-ID: <45f07b37-9ccd-46e0-4d37-5accbb10a83c@oracle.com> On 2020-05-04 15:12, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Before I start making changes, I?ll try to summarize what I think the current consensus looks like. But first a few inline comments: > >> On 22 Apr 2020, at 19:23, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: >> >> 2020/4/17 2:58:18 -0700, magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com: >>> On 2020-04-17 10:46, Erik Helin wrote: >>>> ... >>>> >>>> Both me and Robin are personally fine with rewriting the subject line >>>> more aggressively, we both use MUAs that thread based on the >>>> "In-Reply-To" and "References" headers. I would just like to point out >>>> that several MUAs do *not* thread solely on the "In-Reply-To" and >>>> "References" headers, the most notable one being the Gmail browser >>>> based MUA accessible at https://www.gmail.com. >>> Well, screw them. They can always use emacs instead. ;-) >>> >>> But seriously, would gmail have problem handling a thread properly if >>> you change the subject to be prefixed "Integrated: JDK-xxx ..." rather >>> than "Re: [integrated] RFR: JDK-xxx ..."? It could be worth testing. If >>> this special case is handled ok, then it's not really an issue if the >>> general threading is borked by gmail. >> Let?s not do the wrong thing just to appease a broken MUA, no matter how >> popular it might be. > Right, I have performed various tests here, and the conclusion is that any change of the subject, except for inserting ?Re: ? at the beginning (as well as a few localized versions, such as the Swedish variant Sv: for example) will make that MUA split a thread. So I also agree it?s not really worth taking into account. > >>>> ... >>>> >>>> Now, what are those e-mails prefixed with "FYI" that Magnus mentioned? >>>> We use the "FYI" prefix instead of "RFR" when the bots send an email >>>> for a pull request that has already been integrated. Since the bots >>>> are polling they might encounter a pull request that was very quickly >>>> integrated. This is most likely to happen for OpenJDK projects that do >>>> not require reviews, where Committers can integrate their own pull >>>> requests as soon as they are created (given that they pass jcheck). >> So, theoretically, if the bots didn?t poll but were perfectly in sync >> with GitHub then these ?FYI? messages wouldn?t be needed? > That?s not strictly true actually, the main source of delay here is that the bots are configured to wait a few minutes after the last update to a pull request body or comment before bridging it to a mailing list. This is to capture any quick last-minute edits, something which we have seen is reasonably common. > > ? > >>> This would perhaps >>> mean that the "git:" update mail would not be needed for those projects, >>> since it would just duplicate this information. >> I think there?s still value in the ?git:? style messages, particularly >> for people who want to follow the stream of updates to a repo without >> having to scan every RFR thread for a terminal ?Integrated? message. > Yes, I also think we should keep these separate. As it stands now, the ?git:? messages are serviced through a different bot, to ensure that these work fine even for projects that mostly do not use pull requests (like Loom). Sounds reasonable. > > So in summary, these are the changes that I think we agree on: > > - Normally, pull request emails are prefixed with ?RFR:? > - Comments made in the pull request are prefixed ?Re: RFR:" > - If the pull request is already integrated when the mail is generated, the prefix of the initial mail is ?Integrated:? (changed from ?Re: [Integrated] RFR:?) > - When integration happens, a reply to the original RFR mail is sent with the prefix ?Integrated:" > - Further comments on an already integrated pull request are prefixed ?Re: Integrated:? That sounds good to me. > > There are a few more subject rewriting actions that happen as well: > > If a pull request is closed without being integrated (a.k.a withdrawn), the prefix currently is "Re: [Closed] RFR:? - perhaps change this to ?Closed:?? I think changing it to "Closed:" makes sense. Possibly even be more explicit, so "Withdrawn:" if it is withdrawn, etc (for whatever reasons it can be closed). "Closed" sounds like it *could* mean "I've integrated this now, so I just need to clean up afterwards" but "withdrawn" is very clearly saying "I won't be integrating this". > An incremental update to a pull request creates a direct reply to the initial RFR mail, with the prefix ?Re: [Rev 02] RFR:?. Further comments to the new changes are then threaded as replies to this mail. This makes it easy to see which revision a comment refers to. An option here that may look more similar to the new subjects would be ?RFR: v2:? or similar. Thoughts? My impression is that discussions about a patch in general is somewhat fluid, so that most of the time you don't really care what revision you're talking about. Sometimes you need to be explicit ("the new changes look good", "the solution in revision 1 was actually better than this"), but the important review discussions (e.g. "how does this fit in with the rest of the system") pertain to the patch as such, and not differences between revisions. This means that the revision number is not terribly important. I think it's a good idea to have it in the subject (something which was not really possible prior to Skara), but it really needs to be unobtrusive. Your latter suggestion "RFR: v2:" is better than ?Re: [Rev 02] RFR:?, but I'd even argue that the revision number should be added as a suffix instead, like this: "Re: RFR: Fix fnorbicator parsing [v2]". > Also, the changes will only affect the subjects of the generated emails - the threading headers will remain the same. Or are there any additional concerns or thoughts about how to arrange them to improve readability in thread-capable MUAs (such as the web archive)? I guess that could also be improved later. I don't really know what Skara does now, but I'd assume that each autogenerated mail from the next step in the process is made as a reply to the previous autogenerated, e.g.: RFR (initial) --> RFR (rev2) --> Integrated. And that comments to a PR is made as replies to the RFR mail of the revision being commented. /Magnus > > Best regards, > Robin > >> - Mark From jvernee at openjdk.java.net Thu May 7 10:39:21 2020 From: jvernee at openjdk.java.net (Jorn Vernee) Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 10:39:21 GMT Subject: RFR: 384: Suggest issue command instead of solves command In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 4 May 2020 12:29:13 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this minor change that suggest the `issue` command instead of `solves`. > > Best regards, > Robin Marked as reviewed by jvernee (Reviewer). ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/616 From jvernee at openjdk.java.net Thu May 7 11:44:23 2020 From: jvernee at openjdk.java.net (Jorn Vernee) Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 11:44:23 GMT Subject: RFR: 381: Retry failed materialization of hosted repository storage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 4 May 2020 14:08:31 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that improves the reliability of the initial materialization of hosted repository storage. > > Best regards, > Robin Had to look at this a bit since the control flow is a bit confusing with the early `return` from the constructor. How about putting the retry logic into a separate helper method? This is what I came up with: HostedRepositoryStorage(HostedRepository repository, Path localStorage, String ref, String fileName, String authorName, String authorEmail, String message, StorageSerializer serializer, StorageDeserializer deserializer) { this.hostedRepository = repository; this.ref = ref; this.fileName = fileName; this.authorEmail = authorEmail; this.authorName = authorName; this.message = message; this.serializer = serializer; this.deserializer = deserializer; this.localRepository = tryMaterialize(localStorage); repositoryStorage = new RepositoryStorage<>(localRepository, fileName, authorName, authorEmail, message, serializer, deserializer); current = current(); } private Repository tryMaterialize(Path localStorage) { int retryCount = 0; IOException lastException = null; while (retryCount < 10) { try { try { return Repository.materialize(localStorage, hostedRepository.url(), "+" + ref + ":storage"); } catch (IOException ignored) { // The remote ref may not yet exist Repository localRepository = Repository.init(localStorage, hostedRepository.repositoryType()); var storage = Files.writeString(localStorage.resolve(fileName), ""); localRepository.add(storage); var firstCommit = localRepository.commit(message, authorName, authorEmail); // If the materialization failed for any other reason than the remote ref not existing, this will fail localRepository.push(firstCommit, hostedRepository.url(), ref); return localRepository; } } catch (IOException e) { lastException = e; } retryCount++; } throw new UncheckedIOException("Retry count exceeded", lastException); } This would also allow keeping `localRepository` as a `final` field. What do you think? ------------- Marked as reviewed by jvernee (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/617 From joe.darcy at oracle.com Thu May 7 16:16:05 2020 From: joe.darcy at oracle.com (Joe Darcy) Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 09:16:05 -0700 Subject: Invitation to Project Skara update, Thursday May 7, 2020 at 8:30 am PST (UTC-8) / 4:30 pm GMT (UTC+0) / 5:30 pm CET (UTC+1) In-Reply-To: <883c0164-cdef-af90-6c42-74ab9277058b@oracle.com> References: <883c0164-cdef-af90-6c42-74ab9277058b@oracle.com> Message-ID: PS Slides for the presentation today: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rwestberg/skara/skara_status_update_2020_05_07.pdf To call out a particular item, we're looking to transition the mainline JDK development (http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk) to Skara at the end of JDK 15, start of JDK 16 time frame. Thanks, -Joe On 4/30/2020 4:15 PM, Joe Darcy wrote: > Hello, > > Project Skara has been investigating migrating from Mercurial to Git > for the OpenJDK Community's source code management needs. [1] Please > join the Skara team for an update on this work on Thursday May 7 at > > ???? 8:30 am PST (UTC-8) / 4:30 pm GMT (UTC+0) / 5:30 pm CET (UTC+1) > > The update will discuss OpenJDK projects that have transitioned to > using the Skara tooling, features of that tooling, and the future > roadmap. The meeting will be hosted on Zoom; connection details below. > > Cheers, > > -Joe > > [1] https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/SKARA; also see JEPs, JEP > 357: "Migrate from Mercurial to Git" > (http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/357) and JEP 369: "Migrate to GitHub." > (http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/369). > > From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Fri May 8 12:24:32 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 12:24:32 GMT Subject: [Integrated] RFR: 384: Suggest issue command instead of solves command In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 4 May 2020 12:29:13 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this minor change that suggest the `issue` command instead of `solves`. > > Best regards, > Robin This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: c967e0a7 Author: Robin Westberg URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/commit/c967e0a7 Stats: 6 lines in 2 files changed: 2 ins; 0 del; 4 mod 384: Suggest issue command instead of solves command Reviewed-by: jvernee ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/616 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Fri May 8 12:32:58 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 12:32:58 GMT Subject: [Rev 01] RFR: 381: Retry failed materialization of hosted repository storage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 7 May 2020 11:42:13 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote: >> Robin Westberg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: >> >> Updated after review > > Had to look at this a bit since the control flow is a bit confusing with the early `return` from the constructor. How > about putting the retry logic into a separate helper method? This is what I came up with: > HostedRepositoryStorage(HostedRepository repository, Path localStorage, String ref, String fileName, String authorName, > String authorEmail, String message, StorageSerializer serializer, StorageDeserializer deserializer) { > this.hostedRepository = repository; > this.ref = ref; > this.fileName = fileName; > this.authorEmail = authorEmail; > this.authorName = authorName; > this.message = message; > this.serializer = serializer; > this.deserializer = deserializer; > > this.localRepository = tryMaterialize(repository, localStorage, ref, fileName, authorName, authorEmail, message); > repositoryStorage = new RepositoryStorage<>(localRepository, fileName, authorName, authorEmail, message, serializer, > deserializer); current = current(); > } > > private static Repository tryMaterialize(HostedRepository repository, Path localStorage, String ref, String fileName, > String authorName, String authorEmail, String message) { > int retryCount = 0; > IOException lastException = null; > > while (retryCount < 10) { > try { > try { > return Repository.materialize(localStorage, repository.url(), "+" + ref + ":storage"); > } catch (IOException ignored) { > // The remote ref may not yet exist > Repository localRepository = Repository.init(localStorage, repository.repositoryType()); > var storage = Files.writeString(localStorage.resolve(fileName), ""); > localRepository.add(storage); > var firstCommit = localRepository.commit(message, authorName, authorEmail); > > // If the materialization failed for any other reason than the remote ref not existing, this will fail > localRepository.push(firstCommit, repository.url(), ref); > return localRepository; > } > } catch (IOException e) { > lastException = e; > } > retryCount++; > } > throw new UncheckedIOException("Retry count exceeded", lastException); > } > This would also allow keeping `localRepository` as a `final` field. What do you think? Thanks for reviewing! I agree, your suggestion looks nicer, I'll apply it and push. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/617 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Fri May 8 12:32:57 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 12:32:57 GMT Subject: [Rev 01] RFR: 381: Retry failed materialization of hosted repository storage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that improves the reliability of the initial materialization of hosted repository storage. > > Best regards, > Robin Robin Westberg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Updated after review ------------- Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/617/files - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/617/files/3863faf5..6560c2d9 Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/617/webrev.01 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/617/webrev.00-01 Stats: 17 lines in 1 file changed: 8 ins; 6 del; 3 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/617.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/617/head:pull/617 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/617 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Fri May 8 12:47:41 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 12:47:41 GMT Subject: [Integrated] RFR: 381: Retry failed materialization of hosted repository storage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <-DKL_G3EIGJkH8Z6VbpaBC-tOAW-3Xll9ymamBZ5Kro=.3bac7fd4-b042-42a9-95c4-1d9c6d6ddc81@github.com> On Mon, 4 May 2020 14:08:31 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that improves the reliability of the initial materialization of hosted repository storage. > > Best regards, > Robin This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: eb9b6b1e Author: Robin Westberg URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/commit/eb9b6b1e Stats: 42 lines in 1 file changed: 15 ins; 22 del; 5 mod 381: Retry failed materialization of hosted repository storage Reviewed-by: jvernee ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/617 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Fri May 8 14:37:54 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 14:37:54 GMT Subject: RFR: 394: Merge bot conflict resolution interaction requires separate credentials Message-ID: Hi all, Please review this change that allows the pull request bot to recognize specially formatted command comments made by "itself" (most likely another bot using the same credentials). Best regards, Robin ------------- Commit messages: - Allow self-commands, use it for merge bot Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/618/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/618/webrev.00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/SKARA-394 Stats: 58 lines in 4 files changed: 51 ins; 3 del; 4 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/618.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/618/head:pull/618 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/618 From jvernee at openjdk.java.net Fri May 8 16:07:12 2020 From: jvernee at openjdk.java.net (Jorn Vernee) Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 16:07:12 GMT Subject: RFR: 394: Merge bot conflict resolution interaction requires separate credentials In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 8 May 2020 14:32:57 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that allows the pull request bot to recognize specially formatted command comments made by > "itself" (most likely another bot using the same credentials). > Best regards, > Robin Looks good. Some minor comments left inline. The one about the test bot running early in the test might be the only problematic thing (but I don't think it matters in practice). bots/pr/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/pr/CommandWorkItem.java line 42: > 41: private final Pattern commandReplyPattern = Pattern.compile(""); 42: private final String selfCommandMarker = ""; > 43: FWIW, these fields could also be made `static` as well. bots/pr/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/pr/CommandWorkItem.java line 91: > 90: .map(comment -> new AbstractMap.SimpleEntry<>(comment, > commandPattern.matcher(comment.body()))) 91: .filter(entry -> > !entry.getKey().author().equals(self) || entry.getKey().body().endsWith(selfCommandMarker)) 92: > .filter(entry -> entry.getValue().find()) Could you move this above the `.map(...)` call, so that you can replace `entry.getKey()` with `comment`? (just like before) bots/pr/src/test/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/pr/CommandTests.java line 137: > 136: TestBotRunner.runPeriodicItems(mergeBot); > 137: assertEquals(1, pr.comments().size()); > 138: Should to `runPeriodicItems` call right after adding the "/help" comment be there? Asking because it looks like you want to check the number of comments before and after running the bot below that (but at that point the bot has already run). bots/pr/src/test/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/pr/CommandTests.java line 149: > 148: .filter(comment -> comment.body().contains("help")) > 149: .count(); > 150: assertEquals(1, help); Spurious whitespace on last line Suggestion: var help = pr.comments().stream() .filter(comment -> comment.body().contains("Available commands")) .filter(comment -> comment.body().contains("help")) .count(); ------------- Marked as reviewed by jvernee (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/618 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 07:17:36 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 07:17:36 GMT Subject: RFR: 394: Merge bot conflict resolution interaction requires separate credentials In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 8 May 2020 16:02:23 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Please review this change that allows the pull request bot to recognize specially formatted command comments made by >> "itself" (most likely another bot using the same credentials). >> Best regards, >> Robin > > bots/pr/src/test/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/pr/CommandTests.java line 137: > >> 136: TestBotRunner.runPeriodicItems(mergeBot); >> 137: assertEquals(1, pr.comments().size()); >> 138: > > Should to `runPeriodicItems` call right after adding the "/help" comment be there? Asking because it looks like you > want to check the number of comments before and after running the bot below that (but at that point the bot has already > run). Right, I put the asserts around the bot execution to make it clear that the number doesn't change, but the first invocation certainly obfuscates that.. Will remove it. > bots/pr/src/test/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/pr/CommandTests.java line 149: > >> 148: .filter(comment -> comment.body().contains("help")) >> 149: .count(); >> 150: assertEquals(1, help); > > Spurious whitespace on last line > Suggestion: > > var help = pr.comments().stream() > .filter(comment -> comment.body().contains("Available commands")) > .filter(comment -> comment.body().contains("help")) > .count(); Will fix. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/618 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 07:14:37 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 07:14:37 GMT Subject: RFR: 394: Merge bot conflict resolution interaction requires separate credentials In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <-1a8quJqUjLZbK6ZwPtL6Cu_jf_LlYfXRXxhPihvuBg=.7f6eff0b-a29c-498f-a4f8-492cfaa017df@github.com> On Fri, 8 May 2020 15:51:57 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Please review this change that allows the pull request bot to recognize specially formatted command comments made by >> "itself" (most likely another bot using the same credentials). >> Best regards, >> Robin > > bots/pr/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/pr/CommandWorkItem.java line 42: > >> 41: private final Pattern commandReplyPattern = Pattern.compile(""); 42: private final String selfCommandMarker = ""; >> 43: > > FWIW, these fields could also be made `static` as well. Makes sense, will fix. > bots/pr/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/pr/CommandWorkItem.java line 91: > >> 90: .map(comment -> new AbstractMap.SimpleEntry<>(comment, >> commandPattern.matcher(comment.body()))) 91: .filter(entry -> >> !entry.getKey().author().equals(self) || entry.getKey().body().endsWith(selfCommandMarker)) 92: >> .filter(entry -> entry.getValue().find()) > > Could you move this above the `.map(...)` call, so that you can replace `entry.getKey()` with `comment`? (just like > before) Ah, good catch, at first I intended to match the override marker with the regular expression, but it didn't end up that way, so can revert this. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/618 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 07:25:13 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 07:25:13 GMT Subject: [Rev 01] RFR: 394: Merge bot conflict resolution interaction requires separate credentials In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that allows the pull request bot to recognize specially formatted command comments made by > "itself" (most likely another bot using the same credentials). > Best regards, > Robin Robin Westberg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Updated after review comments ------------- Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/618/files - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/618/files/d76f6b4b..239544df Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/618/webrev.01 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/618/webrev.00-01 Stats: 9 lines in 2 files changed: 1 ins; 2 del; 6 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/618.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/618/head:pull/618 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/618 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 07:31:56 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 07:31:56 GMT Subject: [Integrated] RFR: 394: Merge bot conflict resolution interaction requires separate credentials In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 8 May 2020 14:32:57 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that allows the pull request bot to recognize specially formatted command comments made by > "itself" (most likely another bot using the same credentials). > Best regards, > Robin This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 9573e798 Author: Robin Westberg URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/commit/9573e798 Stats: 59 lines in 4 files changed: 2 ins; 49 del; 8 mod 394: Merge bot conflict resolution interaction requires separate credentials Reviewed-by: jvernee ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/618 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 08:08:10 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 08:08:10 GMT Subject: RFR: 398: git webrev cannot handle a file named index.html Message-ID: Hi all, Please review this change that allows git webrev to generate webrevs even if the commit contains a file named index.html (which would previously conflict with the generated index.html that belongs to the webrev itself). Best regards, Robin ------------- Commit messages: - Avoid raw file collisions with reserved names Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/619/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/619/webrev.00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/SKARA-398 Stats: 28 lines in 2 files changed: 27 ins; 0 del; 1 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/619.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/619/head:pull/619 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/619 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 08:55:36 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 08:55:36 GMT Subject: RFR: 397: Extend the additional errors section with hidden jcheck entries Message-ID: Hi all, Please review this change that displays jcheck failure messages that are "hidden" (not shown as an item in the progress list) in the PR body error section. Best regards, Robin ------------- Commit messages: - Display non-progress-list jcheck failures in the PR status body Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/620/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/620/webrev.00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/SKARA-397 Stats: 119 lines in 5 files changed: 85 ins; 12 del; 22 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/620.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/620/head:pull/620 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/620 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 08:55:46 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 08:55:46 GMT Subject: RFR: 398: git webrev cannot handle a file named index.html In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2tud_tYKmT9jI_UIzTXNqXPfzzSvsSp1kpq026x8EGo=.a4643a5a-5d42-42ea-a9f3-9297a4831417@github.com> On Mon, 11 May 2020 08:03:30 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that allows git webrev to generate webrevs even if the commit contains a file named > index.html (which would previously conflict with the generated index.html that belongs to the webrev itself). > Best regards, > Robin Looks like the test fails on Windows, will take a look. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/619 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 11:09:32 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 11:09:32 GMT Subject: [Rev 01] RFR: 398: git webrev cannot handle a file named index.html In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that allows git webrev to generate webrevs even if the commit contains a file named > index.html (which would previously conflict with the generated index.html that belongs to the webrev itself). > Best regards, > Robin Robin Westberg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Normalize line endings ------------- Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/619/files - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/619/files/c6dbae20..42df40ac Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/619/webrev.01 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/619/webrev.00-01 Stats: 1 line in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 1 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/619.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/619/head:pull/619 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/619 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 11:52:49 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 11:52:49 GMT Subject: RFR: 396: Add some additional help for empty PRs Message-ID: Hi all, Please review this change that adds a placeholder message that can help the user to determine how exactly the "empty PR body" error should be remedied. Best regards, Robin ------------- Commit messages: - Add a replace-me marker Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/621/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/621/webrev.00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/SKARA-396 Stats: 18 lines in 2 files changed: 12 ins; 0 del; 6 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/621.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/621/head:pull/621 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/621 From jvernee at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 12:16:37 2020 From: jvernee at openjdk.java.net (Jorn Vernee) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 12:16:37 GMT Subject: [Rev 01] RFR: 398: git webrev cannot handle a file named index.html In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 11 May 2020 11:09:32 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Please review this change that allows git webrev to generate webrevs even if the commit contains a file named >> index.html (which would previously conflict with the generated index.html that belongs to the webrev itself). >> Best regards, >> Robin > > Robin Westberg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: > > Normalize line endings Marked as reviewed by jvernee (Reviewer). ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/619 From jvernee at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 12:21:46 2020 From: jvernee at openjdk.java.net (Jorn Vernee) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 12:21:46 GMT Subject: RFR: 396: Add some additional help for empty PRs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 11 May 2020 11:47:52 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that adds a placeholder message that can help the user to determine how exactly the "empty PR > body" error should be remedied. > Best regards, > Robin Marked as reviewed by jvernee (Reviewer). ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/621 From jvernee at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 13:32:16 2020 From: jvernee at openjdk.java.net (Jorn Vernee) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 13:32:16 GMT Subject: RFR: 397: Extend the additional errors section with hidden jcheck entries In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 11 May 2020 08:51:22 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that displays jcheck failure messages that are "hidden" (not shown as an item in the progress > list) in the PR body error section. > Best regards, > Robin Marked as reviewed by jvernee (Reviewer). ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/620 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 13:41:47 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 13:41:47 GMT Subject: RFR: 391: Abort merge if source branch merge isn't fast-forward Message-ID: Hi all, Please review this change that ensures that the merge bot's local storage has been cleanly updated with the latest destination changes (through a fast-forward merge). Otherwise, it's possible for an error to be detected when doing the actual merge, even though it should succeed. Best regards, Robin ------------- Commit messages: - Mergebot updating of local storage should always be fast-forward Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/622/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/622/webrev.00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/SKARA-391 Stats: 92 lines in 2 files changed: 81 ins; 8 del; 3 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/622.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/622/head:pull/622 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/622 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 13:51:26 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 13:51:26 GMT Subject: [Integrated] RFR: 398: git webrev cannot handle a file named index.html In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 11 May 2020 08:03:30 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that allows git webrev to generate webrevs even if the commit contains a file named > index.html (which would previously conflict with the generated index.html that belongs to the webrev itself). > Best regards, > Robin This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 6b6952e4 Author: Robin Westberg URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/commit/6b6952e4 Stats: 29 lines in 2 files changed: 0 ins; 27 del; 2 mod 398: git webrev cannot handle a file named index.html Reviewed-by: jvernee ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/619 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 13:52:56 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 13:52:56 GMT Subject: [Integrated] RFR: 397: Extend the additional errors section with hidden jcheck entries In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 11 May 2020 08:51:22 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that displays jcheck failure messages that are "hidden" (not shown as an item in the progress > list) in the PR body error section. > Best regards, > Robin This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: c5584795 Author: Robin Westberg URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/commit/c5584795 Stats: 119 lines in 5 files changed: 12 ins; 85 del; 22 mod 397: Extend the additional errors section with hidden jcheck entries Reviewed-by: jvernee ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/620 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 13:53:35 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 13:53:35 GMT Subject: [Integrated] RFR: 396: Add some additional help for empty PRs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 11 May 2020 11:47:52 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that adds a placeholder message that can help the user to determine how exactly the "empty PR > body" error should be remedied. > Best regards, > Robin This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 052aee42 Author: Robin Westberg URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/commit/052aee42 Stats: 18 lines in 2 files changed: 0 ins; 12 del; 6 mod 396: Add some additional help for empty PRs Reviewed-by: jvernee ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/621 From jvernee at openjdk.java.net Mon May 11 17:09:45 2020 From: jvernee at openjdk.java.net (Jorn Vernee) Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 17:09:45 GMT Subject: RFR: 391: Abort merge if source branch merge isn't fast-forward In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 11 May 2020 13:37:23 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that ensures that the merge bot's local storage has been cleanly updated with the latest > destination changes (through a fast-forward merge). Otherwise, it's possible for an error to be detected when doing the > actual merge, even though it should succeed. Best regards, > Robin Marked as reviewed by jvernee (Reviewer). ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/622 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Tue May 12 07:32:20 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 07:32:20 GMT Subject: [Integrated] RFR: 391: Abort merge if source branch merge isn't fast-forward In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 11 May 2020 13:37:23 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that ensures that the merge bot's local storage has been cleanly updated with the latest > destination changes (through a fast-forward merge). Otherwise, it's possible for an error to be detected when doing the > actual merge, even though it should succeed. Best regards, > Robin This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: ec124944 Author: Robin Westberg URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/commit/ec124944 Stats: 92 lines in 2 files changed: 8 ins; 81 del; 3 mod 391: Abort merge if source branch merge isn't fast-forward Reviewed-by: jvernee ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/622 From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Tue May 12 14:45:06 2020 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 07:45:06 -0700 Subject: Email subject line formatting In-Reply-To: <3D560F2E-B5F6-4656-9C53-80AFA66239A9@oracle.com> References: <3b83157d-3570-129f-d4a7-028c6872885d@oracle.com> <20200414113234.9902763@eggemoggin.niobe.net> <70afb55c-7f19-5b55-b33f-ff17099fc907@oracle.com> <20200422102317.318371634@eggemoggin.niobe.net> <3D560F2E-B5F6-4656-9C53-80AFA66239A9@oracle.com> Message-ID: <20200512074506.836056883@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2020/5/4 6:12:32 -0700, robin.westberg at oracle.com: > ... > > So in summary, these are the changes that I think we agree on: > > - Normally, pull request emails are prefixed with ?RFR:? > - Comments made in the pull request are prefixed ?Re: RFR:" > - If the pull request is already integrated when the mail is > generated, the prefix of the initial mail is ?Integrated:? (changed > from ?Re: [Integrated] RFR:?) Do you mean, changed from ?FYI: ...?? > - When integration happens, a reply to the original RFR mail is sent > with the prefix ?Integrated:" > - Further comments on an already integrated pull request are prefixed > ?Re: Integrated:? This all sounds fine. Side question: Is there a reason for using the term ?integrated? rather than ?merged?? > There are a few more subject rewriting actions that happen as well: > > If a pull request is closed without being integrated (a.k.a > withdrawn), the prefix currently is "Re: [Closed] RFR:? - perhaps > change this to ?Closed:?? I agree with Magnus that ?withdrawn? would be a better term here, but perhaps ?closed? is preferable if that?s the term that Git/GitHub use for this action. > An incremental update to a pull request creates a direct reply to the > initial RFR mail, with the prefix ?Re: [Rev 02] RFR:?. Further > comments to the new changes are then threaded as replies to this > mail. This makes it easy to see which revision a comment refers to. An > option here that may look more similar to the new subjects would be > ?RFR: v2:? or similar. Thoughts? I agree with Magnus that a ?[v2]? suffix would be preferable. > Also, the changes will only affect the subjects of the generated > emails - the threading headers will remain the same. Or are there any > additional concerns or thoughts about how to arrange them to improve > readability in thread-capable MUAs (such as the web archive)? I guess > that could also be improved later. If by ?threading headers? you mean the "In-Reply-To" and "References" headers, then I don?t see why those would need to change. - Mark From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Wed May 13 07:45:09 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 07:45:09 GMT Subject: RFR: 383: More fuzzy matching of bug ids in PR titles Message-ID: Hi all, Please review this change that allows a more relaxed matching of bug ids in PR titles. Also contains a bit of refactoring to make it explicit when the project name could be part of the bug id. There were several places that expected the project name to not be present (as they would fetch the issue using the key from a specific project) - these now explicitly use the shortId. Best regards, Robin ------------- Commit messages: - Introduce relaxed issue parsing, and use it when parsing PR titles Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/623/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/623/webrev.00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/SKARA-383 Stats: 156 lines in 15 files changed: 70 ins; 20 del; 66 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/623.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/623/head:pull/623 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/623 From jvernee at openjdk.java.net Thu May 14 14:05:50 2020 From: jvernee at openjdk.java.net (Jorn Vernee) Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 14:05:50 GMT Subject: RFR: 383: More fuzzy matching of bug ids in PR titles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 13 May 2020 07:40:22 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that allows a more relaxed matching of bug ids in PR titles. Also contains a bit of > refactoring to make it explicit when the project name could be part of the bug id. There were several places that > expected the project name to not be present (as they would fetch the issue using the key from a specific project) - > these now explicitly use the shortId. Best regards, Robin LGTM. One minor comment. vcs/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/vcs/openjdk/Issue.java line 89: > 88: public String toShortString() { > 89: return id + ": " + description; > 90: } Bit confusing here when also looking at the toString method impl. Maybe you should rename the `id` field to `shortId` now? (to match the method names) ------------- Marked as reviewed by jvernee (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/623 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Thu May 14 14:09:16 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 14:09:16 GMT Subject: RFR: 274: Remove quoted part of top-level reply emails in GitHub comments Message-ID: <8kJBbBPB4IpBOtPXadalBnlVTKG-o62kyR2WYFnYcIM=.9b74ec07-4e2c-4444-a2fa-6001bb8924fb@github.com> Hi all, Please review this change that looks for quoted parts in bridged emails which can be safely discarded, as the context is clearly visible anyway in the GitHub web UI. Best regards, Robin ------------- Commit messages: - Detect and filter quoted PR blocks Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/625/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/625/webrev.00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/SKARA-274 Stats: 135 lines in 3 files changed: 134 ins; 0 del; 1 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/625.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/625/head:pull/625 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/625 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Thu May 14 14:34:41 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 14:34:41 GMT Subject: RFR: 383: More fuzzy matching of bug ids in PR titles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 14 May 2020 13:56:00 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Please review this change that allows a more relaxed matching of bug ids in PR titles. Also contains a bit of >> refactoring to make it explicit when the project name could be part of the bug id. There were several places that >> expected the project name to not be present (as they would fetch the issue using the key from a specific project) - >> these now explicitly use the shortId. Best regards, Robin > > vcs/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/vcs/openjdk/Issue.java line 89: > >> 88: public String toShortString() { >> 89: return id + ": " + description; >> 90: } > > Bit confusing here when also looking at the toString method impl. Maybe you should rename the `id` field to `shortId` > now? (to match the method names) Makes sense, will change it.. There's probably a better name than `shortId` waiting to be discovered out there, but I didn't find it.. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/623 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Thu May 14 14:42:14 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 14:42:14 GMT Subject: [Rev 01] RFR: 383: More fuzzy matching of bug ids in PR titles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that allows a more relaxed matching of bug ids in PR titles. Also contains a bit of > refactoring to make it explicit when the project name could be part of the bug id. There were several places that > expected the project name to not be present (as they would fetch the issue using the key from a specific project) - > these now explicitly use the shortId. Best regards, Robin Robin Westberg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Updated after review ------------- Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/623/files - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/623/files/bc885ebe..c9515f6a Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/623/webrev.01 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/623/webrev.00-01 Stats: 8 lines in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 8 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/623.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/623/head:pull/623 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/623 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Thu May 14 14:47:51 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 14:47:51 GMT Subject: [Integrated] RFR: 383: More fuzzy matching of bug ids in PR titles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 13 May 2020 07:40:22 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that allows a more relaxed matching of bug ids in PR titles. Also contains a bit of > refactoring to make it explicit when the project name could be part of the bug id. There were several places that > expected the project name to not be present (as they would fetch the issue using the key from a specific project) - > these now explicitly use the shortId. Best regards, Robin This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: d1c1a507 Author: Robin Westberg URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/commit/d1c1a507 Stats: 158 lines in 15 files changed: 20 ins; 70 del; 68 mod 383: More fuzzy matching of bug ids in PR titles Reviewed-by: jvernee ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/623 From jvernee at openjdk.java.net Thu May 14 16:41:29 2020 From: jvernee at openjdk.java.net (Jorn Vernee) Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 16:41:29 GMT Subject: RFR: 274: Remove quoted part of top-level reply emails in GitHub comments In-Reply-To: <8kJBbBPB4IpBOtPXadalBnlVTKG-o62kyR2WYFnYcIM=.9b74ec07-4e2c-4444-a2fa-6001bb8924fb@github.com> References: <8kJBbBPB4IpBOtPXadalBnlVTKG-o62kyR2WYFnYcIM=.9b74ec07-4e2c-4444-a2fa-6001bb8924fb@github.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 14 May 2020 14:04:43 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that looks for quoted parts in bridged emails which can be safely discarded, as the context > is clearly visible anyway in the GitHub web UI. > Best regards, > Robin Marked as reviewed by jvernee (Reviewer). ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/625 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Thu May 14 17:16:59 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 17:16:59 GMT Subject: [Integrated] RFR: 274: Remove quoted part of top-level reply emails in GitHub comments In-Reply-To: <8kJBbBPB4IpBOtPXadalBnlVTKG-o62kyR2WYFnYcIM=.9b74ec07-4e2c-4444-a2fa-6001bb8924fb@github.com> References: <8kJBbBPB4IpBOtPXadalBnlVTKG-o62kyR2WYFnYcIM=.9b74ec07-4e2c-4444-a2fa-6001bb8924fb@github.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 14 May 2020 14:04:43 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that looks for quoted parts in bridged emails which can be safely discarded, as the context > is clearly visible anyway in the GitHub web UI. > Best regards, > Robin This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: a0340ac5 Author: Robin Westberg URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/commit/a0340ac5 Stats: 135 lines in 3 files changed: 0 ins; 134 del; 1 mod 274: Remove quoted part of top-level reply emails in GitHub comments Reviewed-by: jvernee ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/625 From ehelin at openjdk.java.net Mon May 25 06:55:02 2020 From: ehelin at openjdk.java.net (Erik Helin) Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 06:55:02 GMT Subject: [Closed] RFR: Add out-of-the-box support for IntelliJ IDEA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 09:17:22 GMT, Erik Helin wrote: > Hi all, > > please review this PR that adds "out of the box" support for IntelliJ IDEA for > Skara. The changes primarily consists of: > > - IntelliJ IDEA configuration files > - Re-working the build system to support one JRE for running Gradle and one JDK > for building and testing Skara > - Documentation updates > > The build changes are a bit messy, I will refactor them later, but I want to > await feedback first to see if we need to some additional changes. > > Testing: > - Opening up the Skara root directory in a fresh install of IntelliJ IDEA on > Linux x64 > > Thanks, > Erik This pull request has been closed without being integrated. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/489 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 25 06:57:32 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 06:57:32 GMT Subject: RFR: 402: Properly parse issue titles starting with non-alphanumeric characters Message-ID: Hi all, Please review this change that properly parses issue titles starting with a non-alphanumeric character. Best regards, Robin ------------- Commit messages: - Improve regexp, add tests Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/628/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/628/webrev.00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/SKARA-402 Stats: 44 lines in 2 files changed: 43 ins; 0 del; 1 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/628.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/628/head:pull/628 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/628 From iignatyev at openjdk.java.net Mon May 25 06:59:14 2020 From: iignatyev at openjdk.java.net (Igor Ignatyev) Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 06:59:14 GMT Subject: RFR: [cli] fix typo in GitPrHelp Message-ID: a trivial patch to fix a typo in GitPrHelp (s/requeqsts/requests) ------------- Commit messages: - fix typo in GitPrHelp Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/627/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/627/webrev.00 Stats: 1 line in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 1 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/627.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/627/head:pull/627 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/627 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Mon May 25 07:09:01 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 07:09:01 GMT Subject: RFR: [cli] fix typo in GitPrHelp In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 22 May 2020 17:55:29 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote: > a trivial patch to fix a typo in GitPrHelp (s/requeqsts/requests) Looks good, thanks for fixing! ------------- Marked as reviewed by rwestberg (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/627 From jvernee at openjdk.java.net Mon May 25 13:45:12 2020 From: jvernee at openjdk.java.net (Jorn Vernee) Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 13:45:12 GMT Subject: RFR: 402: Properly parse issue titles starting with non-alphanumeric characters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 25 May 2020 06:43:25 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that properly parses issue titles starting with a non-alphanumeric character. > > Best regards, > Robin LGTM! vcs/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/vcs/openjdk/Issue.java line 33: > 32: > 33: private final static Pattern relaxedIssueParsePattern = > Pattern.compile("^((?:[A-Z][A-Z0-9]+-)?[0-9]+)(?:(?:[^\\p{Alnum}]+\\s)|(?:\\s+))(\\S.*)$"); 34: I think the `[^\\p{Alnum}]+\\s` pattern mostly subsumes the `\\s+` pattern? I think it can be simplified to: Suggestion: private final static Pattern relaxedIssueParsePattern = Pattern.compile("^((?:[A-Z][A-Z0-9]+-)?[0-9]+)[^\\p{Alnum}]*\\s(\\S.*)$"); This passes the test locally. ------------- Marked as reviewed by jvernee (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/628 From iignatyev at openjdk.java.net Mon May 25 18:08:31 2020 From: iignatyev at openjdk.java.net (Igor Ignatyev) Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 18:08:31 GMT Subject: RFR: [cli] fix typo in GitPrHelp In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 25 May 2020 07:06:58 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: >> a trivial patch to fix a typo in GitPrHelp (s/requeqsts/requests) > > Looks good, thanks for fixing! Thanks, @rwestberg. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/627 From iignatyev at openjdk.java.net Tue May 26 04:17:51 2020 From: iignatyev at openjdk.java.net (Igor Ignatyev) Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 04:17:51 GMT Subject: [Integrated] RFR: [cli] fix typo in GitPrHelp In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 22 May 2020 17:55:29 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote: > a trivial patch to fix a typo in GitPrHelp (s/requeqsts/requests) This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: c95cf5af Author: Igor Ignatyev Committer: Robin Westberg URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/commit/c95cf5af Stats: 1 line in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 1 mod [cli] fix typo in GitPrHelp Reviewed-by: rwestberg ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/627 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Tue May 26 04:38:24 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 04:38:24 GMT Subject: RFR: 403: Allow openjdk-import to update an existing conversion Message-ID: Hi all, Please review this change that allows the CLI command `openjdk-import` to update an existing conversion by simply running the same command again. Best regards, Robin ------------- Commit messages: - Add support for reusing existing conversion Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/629/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/629/webrev.00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/SKARA-403 Stats: 27 lines in 1 file changed: 18 ins; 5 del; 4 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/629.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/629/head:pull/629 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/629 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Tue May 26 04:49:08 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 04:49:08 GMT Subject: [Rev 01] RFR: 402: Properly parse issue titles starting with non-alphanumeric characters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that properly parses issue titles starting with a non-alphanumeric character. > > Best regards, > Robin Robin Westberg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Update vcs/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/vcs/openjdk/Issue.java Co-authored-by: Jorn Vernee This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 96f75733 Author: Robin Westberg URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/commit/96f75733 Stats: 44 lines in 2 files changed: 0 ins; 43 del; 1 mod 402: Properly parse issue titles starting with non-alphanumeric characters Reviewed-by: jvernee ------------- Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/628/files - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/628/files/86f204bb..6b33a2ad Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/628/webrev.01 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/628/webrev.00-01 Stats: 1 line in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 1 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/628.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/628/head:pull/628 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/628 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Tue May 26 04:49:08 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 04:49:08 GMT Subject: [Rev 01] RFR: 402: Properly parse issue titles starting with non-alphanumeric characters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 25 May 2020 13:42:48 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote: >> Robin Westberg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: >> >> Update vcs/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/vcs/openjdk/Issue.java >> >> Co-authored-by: Jorn Vernee > > vcs/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/vcs/openjdk/Issue.java line 33: > >> 32: >> 33: private final static Pattern relaxedIssueParsePattern = >> Pattern.compile("^((?:[A-Z][A-Z0-9]+-)?[0-9]+)(?:(?:[^\\p{Alnum}]+\\s)|(?:\\s+))(\\S.*)$"); 34: > > I think the `[^\\p{Alnum}]+\\s` pattern mostly subsumes the `\\s+` pattern? I think it can be simplified to: > Suggestion: > > private final static Pattern relaxedIssueParsePattern = > Pattern.compile("^((?:[A-Z][A-Z0-9]+-)?[0-9]+)[^\\p{Alnum}]*\\s(\\S.*)$"); > This passes the test locally. Thanks, that certainly is nicer! ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/628 From jvernee at openjdk.java.net Tue May 26 09:10:06 2020 From: jvernee at openjdk.java.net (Jorn Vernee) Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 09:10:06 GMT Subject: RFR: 403: Allow openjdk-import to update an existing conversion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 26 May 2020 04:33:23 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that allows the CLI command `openjdk-import` to update an existing conversion by simply > running the same command again. > Best regards, > Robin Marked as reviewed by jvernee (Reviewer). ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/629 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Tue May 26 09:28:13 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 09:28:13 GMT Subject: [Integrated] RFR: 403: Allow openjdk-import to update an existing conversion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 26 May 2020 04:33:23 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that allows the CLI command `openjdk-import` to update an existing conversion by simply > running the same command again. > Best regards, > Robin This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: b03e4420 Author: Robin Westberg URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/commit/b03e4420 Stats: 26 lines in 1 file changed: 4 ins; 17 del; 5 mod 403: Allow openjdk-import to update an existing conversion Reviewed-by: jvernee ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/629 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Tue May 26 11:49:16 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 11:49:16 GMT Subject: RFR: 401: Allow a PR author to manually add reviewers Message-ID: Hi all, Please review this change that adds a `/reviewer` command that allows the PR author to manually add reviewers. The implementation is fairly similar to the `/contributor` command. Best regards, Robin ------------- Commit messages: - Add /reviewer command Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/630/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/630/webrev.00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/SKARA-401 Stats: 705 lines in 7 files changed: 703 ins; 0 del; 2 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/630.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/630/head:pull/630 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/630 From kcr at openjdk.java.net Tue May 26 12:01:23 2020 From: kcr at openjdk.java.net (Kevin Rushforth) Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 12:01:23 GMT Subject: RFR: 401: Allow a PR author to manually add reviewers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1-XeHGfPeZrnRHCBaefMQV3nudbQJfxgWsGOHbiP6wA=.e7fb1116-ca17-4a14-97f3-2a974bad2025@github.com> On Tue, 26 May 2020 11:43:46 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that adds a `/reviewer` command that allows the PR author to manually add reviewers. The > implementation is fairly similar to the `/contributor` command. > Best regards, > Robin I presume that the added reviewers don't count towards satisfying the requirement of number of reviewers? ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/630 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Tue May 26 12:04:13 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 12:04:13 GMT Subject: RFR: 401: Allow a PR author to manually add reviewers In-Reply-To: <1-XeHGfPeZrnRHCBaefMQV3nudbQJfxgWsGOHbiP6wA=.e7fb1116-ca17-4a14-97f3-2a974bad2025@github.com> References: <1-XeHGfPeZrnRHCBaefMQV3nudbQJfxgWsGOHbiP6wA=.e7fb1116-ca17-4a14-97f3-2a974bad2025@github.com> Message-ID: <0wIKN8AIqcdsT3iB8_aCMuhtX7knkLApZ8vFwKIa3EQ=.183e1d7c-c283-420b-83e9-b6653f3e5324@github.com> On Tue, 26 May 2020 11:59:10 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Please review this change that adds a `/reviewer` command that allows the PR author to manually add reviewers. The >> implementation is fairly similar to the `/contributor` command. >> Best regards, >> Robin > > I presume that the added reviewers don't count towards satisfying the requirement of number of reviewers? They do count, unless the project is configured to require up-to-date reviews of the latest commit (like jfx for example). ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/630 From kcr at openjdk.java.net Tue May 26 12:12:03 2020 From: kcr at openjdk.java.net (Kevin Rushforth) Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 12:12:03 GMT Subject: RFR: 401: Allow a PR author to manually add reviewers In-Reply-To: <0wIKN8AIqcdsT3iB8_aCMuhtX7knkLApZ8vFwKIa3EQ=.183e1d7c-c283-420b-83e9-b6653f3e5324@github.com> References: <1-XeHGfPeZrnRHCBaefMQV3nudbQJfxgWsGOHbiP6wA=.e7fb1116-ca17-4a14-97f3-2a974bad2025@github.com> <0wIKN8AIqcdsT3iB8_aCMuhtX7knkLApZ8vFwKIa3EQ=.183e1d7c-c283-420b-83e9-b6653f3e5324@github.com> Message-ID: <1i4oxKpaCu8NNyVe6aweZ7Gqz7LJ9XqU9AX69-rH1QE=.59838f8a-15bc-47ec-8367-cc0de37788b9@github.com> On Tue, 26 May 2020 12:02:09 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: >> I presume that the added reviewers don't count towards satisfying the requirement of number of reviewers? > > They do count, unless the project is configured to require up-to-date reviews of the latest commit (like jfx for > example). So it will count the same as a stale review? That seems fine. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/630 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Tue May 26 12:22:12 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 12:22:12 GMT Subject: RFR: 401: Allow a PR author to manually add reviewers In-Reply-To: <1i4oxKpaCu8NNyVe6aweZ7Gqz7LJ9XqU9AX69-rH1QE=.59838f8a-15bc-47ec-8367-cc0de37788b9@github.com> References: <1-XeHGfPeZrnRHCBaefMQV3nudbQJfxgWsGOHbiP6wA=.e7fb1116-ca17-4a14-97f3-2a974bad2025@github.com> <0wIKN8AIqcdsT3iB8_aCMuhtX7knkLApZ8vFwKIa3EQ=.183e1d7c-c283-420b-83e9-b6653f3e5324@github.com> <1i4oxKpaCu8NNyVe6aweZ7Gqz7LJ9XqU9AX69-rH1QE=.59838f8a-15bc-47ec-8367-cc0de37788b9@github.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 26 May 2020 12:09:57 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: >> They do count, unless the project is configured to require up-to-date reviews of the latest commit (like jfx for >> example). > > So it will count the same as a stale review? That seems fine. Yeah exactly, when a project is configured to ignore stale reviews it will also ignore any manually added ones. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/630 From joe.darcy at oracle.com Wed May 27 02:28:43 2020 From: joe.darcy at oracle.com (Joe Darcy) Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 19:28:43 -0700 Subject: JEPs 357 and 369 now targeted to #JDK16: Message-ID: FYI, the two JEPs of Project Skara: ??? JEP 357: Migrate from Mercurial to Git ??? https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/357 ??? JEP 369: Migrate to GitHub ??? https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/369 are now targeted to JDK16: https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-dev/2020-May/004335.html -Joe From jvernee at openjdk.java.net Wed May 27 15:11:23 2020 From: jvernee at openjdk.java.net (Jorn Vernee) Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 15:11:23 GMT Subject: RFR: 401: Allow a PR author to manually add reviewers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 26 May 2020 11:43:46 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that adds a `/reviewer` command that allows the PR author to manually add reviewers. The > implementation is fairly similar to the `/contributor` command. > Best regards, > Robin Looks good. 2 minor suggestions inline bots/pr/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/pr/ReviewerCommand.java line 76: > 75: if (bot.ignoreStaleReviews()) { > 76: reply.println("This project requires authenticated reviews - please ask your reviewer to flag this PR > as reviewed."); 77: return; Maybe this should contain an `@` as well? (both to notify and make it clear who is being addressed). bots/pr/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/pr/ReviewerCommand.java line 98: > 97: .filter(Objects::nonNull) > 98: .collect(Collectors.toSet()); > 99: I see this stream pipeline duplicated a few times already (in CheckablePullRequest and CheckRun). Maybe you want to move this to a helper method somewhere? ------------- Marked as reviewed by jvernee (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/630 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Thu May 28 06:49:50 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 06:49:50 GMT Subject: RFR: 401: Allow a PR author to manually add reviewers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8K0_MIDyY16YwiRzZkew_hFYiyqwQvILXq9JDQDtReo=.04baceda-bf44-4b6b-afbe-95118b8c6c65@github.com> On Wed, 27 May 2020 13:05:19 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Please review this change that adds a `/reviewer` command that allows the PR author to manually add reviewers. The >> implementation is fairly similar to the `/contributor` command. >> Best regards, >> Robin > > bots/pr/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/pr/ReviewerCommand.java line 76: > >> 75: if (bot.ignoreStaleReviews()) { >> 76: reply.println("This project requires authenticated reviews - please ask your reviewer to flag this PR >> as reviewed."); 77: return; > > Maybe this should contain an `@` as well? (both to notify and make it clear who is being addressed). Yep, but all command replies are automatically prepended with `@comment-author` - and since the check above this one ensures that the comment author is the pr-author the message should only happen as a reply to the author of the pr. > bots/pr/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/pr/ReviewerCommand.java line 98: > >> 97: .filter(Objects::nonNull) >> 98: .collect(Collectors.toSet()); >> 99: > > I see this stream pipeline duplicated a few times already (in CheckablePullRequest and CheckRun). Maybe you want to > move this to a helper method somewhere? Good point, I'll move it to somewhere common. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/630 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Thu May 28 07:31:46 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 07:31:46 GMT Subject: [Rev 01] RFR: 401: Allow a PR author to manually add reviewers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that adds a `/reviewer` command that allows the PR author to manually add reviewers. The > implementation is fairly similar to the `/contributor` command. > Best regards, > Robin Robin Westberg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Move Review to reviewer names into a common helper function ------------- Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/630/files - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/630/files/b9586b62..5328f868 Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/630/webrev.01 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/630/webrev.00-01 Stats: 41 lines in 4 files changed: 9 ins; 19 del; 13 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/630.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/630/head:pull/630 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/630 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Thu May 28 08:24:01 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 08:24:01 GMT Subject: [Integrated] RFR: 401: Allow a PR author to manually add reviewers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 26 May 2020 11:43:46 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that adds a `/reviewer` command that allows the PR author to manually add reviewers. The > implementation is fairly similar to the `/contributor` command. > Best regards, > Robin This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: f6b8bd88 Author: Robin Westberg URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/commit/f6b8bd88 Stats: 713 lines in 8 files changed: 5 ins; 698 del; 10 mod 401: Allow a PR author to manually add reviewers Reviewed-by: jvernee ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/630 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Thu May 28 08:42:33 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 08:42:33 GMT Subject: RFR: Separate the various notifiers into their own packages Message-ID: Hi all, Please review this refactoring change that moves the various notifiers into their own packages, and moves the configuration parsing into the respective package. Best regards, Robin ------------- Commit messages: - Separate the various notifiers into their packages Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/631/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/631/webrev.00 Stats: 5930 lines in 31 files changed: 2803 ins; 3091 del; 36 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/631.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/631/head:pull/631 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/631 From jvernee at openjdk.java.net Thu May 28 12:24:31 2020 From: jvernee at openjdk.java.net (Jorn Vernee) Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 12:24:31 GMT Subject: RFR: Separate the various notifiers into their own packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <-nAz9VFi7cay_lFzB71a68YZVI9kNlC574hmFnRIFoQ=.e0770714-fc5e-4ddd-a4ba-37c76eda0fb8@github.com> On Thu, 28 May 2020 08:36:02 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this refactoring change that moves the various notifiers into their own packages, and moves the > configuration parsing into the respective package. > Best regards, > Robin Looks good. Minor comments. bots/notify/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/notify/mailinglist/MailingListUpdaterFactory.java line 72: > 71: } > 72: mailingListUpdaterBuilder.mode(mode); > 73: } Seems to be pre-existing, but this looks weird to me; either `mode` is overwritten by Mode.PR, or an exception is thrown. Seems like Mode.ALL is never used? (I only noticed this because IDEA suggested turning this into an `if` statement). bots/notify/src/test/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/notify/MailingListUpdaterTests.java line 1: > 1: package org.openjdk.skara.bots.notify; > 2: copyright header is missing here ------------- Marked as reviewed by jvernee (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/631 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Thu May 28 13:07:55 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 13:07:55 GMT Subject: RFR: 404: Add a blank line after quoted blocks in TextToMarkdown Message-ID: Hi all, Please review this change that inserts an blank line after quoted blocks in case there isn't one already, which matches how an email client would render the text. Best regards, Robin ------------- Commit messages: - Append a blank line after quoted blocks that don't already have one Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/632/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/632/webrev.00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/SKARA-404 Stats: 28 lines in 2 files changed: 27 ins; 0 del; 1 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/632.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/632/head:pull/632 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/632 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Thu May 28 13:12:31 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 13:12:31 GMT Subject: RFR: Separate the various notifiers into their own packages In-Reply-To: <-nAz9VFi7cay_lFzB71a68YZVI9kNlC574hmFnRIFoQ=.e0770714-fc5e-4ddd-a4ba-37c76eda0fb8@github.com> References: <-nAz9VFi7cay_lFzB71a68YZVI9kNlC574hmFnRIFoQ=.e0770714-fc5e-4ddd-a4ba-37c76eda0fb8@github.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 May 2020 11:51:23 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Please review this refactoring change that moves the various notifiers into their own packages, and moves the >> configuration parsing into the respective package. >> Best regards, >> Robin > > bots/notify/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/notify/mailinglist/MailingListUpdaterFactory.java line 72: > >> 71: } >> 72: mailingListUpdaterBuilder.mode(mode); >> 73: } > > Seems to be pre-existing, but this looks weird to me; either `mode` is overwritten by Mode.PR, or an exception is > thrown. Seems like Mode.ALL is never used? (I only noticed this because IDEA suggested turning this into an `if` > statement). The All mode is set by default, so if the configuration doesn't contain an entry, it will be used. But this certainly looks a bit odd, can add "all" as a case as well to make it more clear. > bots/notify/src/test/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/notify/MailingListUpdaterTests.java line 1: > >> 1: package org.openjdk.skara.bots.notify; >> 2: > > copyright header is missing here Thanks, will add. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/631 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Thu May 28 13:36:21 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 13:36:21 GMT Subject: [Rev 01] RFR: Separate the various notifiers into their own packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <62uuP-xu4a-G3PlZL1q0SzhlgH-wpBoarTS_w8Ur1us=.a44986f3-5797-4bbe-8233-71b817d70240@github.com> > Hi all, > > Please review this refactoring change that moves the various notifiers into their own packages, and moves the > configuration parsing into the respective package. > Best regards, > Robin Robin Westberg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Updated after review comments ------------- Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/631/files - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/631/files/5519b69f..ab20565d Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/631/webrev.01 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/skara/631/webrev.00-01 Stats: 26 lines in 2 files changed: 25 ins; 0 del; 1 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/631.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara pull/631/head:pull/631 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/631 From rwestberg at openjdk.java.net Thu May 28 14:08:51 2020 From: rwestberg at openjdk.java.net (Robin Westberg) Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 14:08:51 GMT Subject: [Integrated] RFR: Separate the various notifiers into their own packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 28 May 2020 08:36:02 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this refactoring change that moves the various notifiers into their own packages, and moves the > configuration parsing into the respective package. > Best regards, > Robin This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 417adeb2 Author: Robin Westberg URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/commit/417adeb2 Stats: 5953 lines in 31 files changed: 3089 ins; 2826 del; 38 mod Separate the various notifiers into their own packages Reviewed-by: jvernee ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/631 From jvernee at openjdk.java.net Fri May 29 14:25:51 2020 From: jvernee at openjdk.java.net (Jorn Vernee) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 14:25:51 GMT Subject: RFR: 404: Add a blank line after quoted blocks in TextToMarkdown In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 28 May 2020 13:02:25 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > Hi all, > > Please review this change that inserts an blank line after quoted blocks in case there isn't one already, which matches > how an email client would render the text. > Best regards, > Robin Marked as reviewed by jvernee (Reviewer). ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/skara/pull/632 From youngty1997 at gmail.com Fri May 29 15:50:05 2020 From: youngty1997 at gmail.com (Ty Young) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 10:50:05 -0500 Subject: Feature request: automatic JDK builds & build status badge for each platform In-Reply-To: <135d4642-2dff-789d-c01e-ea3bd226cd75@gmail.com> References: <135d4642-2dff-789d-c01e-ea3bd226cd75@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9df6dc58-f477-9b78-b081-a1b774bc2df6@gmail.com> Forgot to finish subscribing before sending, sorry. On 5/29/20 10:46 AM, Ty Young wrote: > (Apologies if this isn't within the scope of Skara or has been > discussed before. Please don't shoot me if either are true.) > > > Hi, > > > I frequently compile-from-source and use Project Panama's > Foreign-Memory-Access(FMA) builds from Github[1]. While this works, it > requires a lot of processing power, memory, and time to do and JDK > builds sometimes fail to build or have JVM bugs that result in > unexpected crashes. It is also fairly common in places such as the > U.S. to have data caps that can easily be eaten up by downloading JDK > source code that doesn't even compile. > > > So, I'm wondering if automatic JDK builds and a checkmark badge for > each and every JDK platform could be added to resolve these issues. I > know it's a bit of a tall order, but doing so would really help people > like myself who frequently use in-development JDK features. Perhaps it > could help increase the amount of people playing around with these > in-development features as well since the bar to enter will be lowered. > > > Presumably these builds are already being built somewhere and go > through testing, but if not or if making them public isn't an option, > perhaps using Github's "Actions" feature would suffice for building? > Just an idea. > > > [1] https://github.com/openjdk/panama-foreign >