From ihse at openjdk.org  Tue Apr  1 11:23:02 2025
From: ihse at openjdk.org (Magnus Ihse Bursie)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 11:23:02 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2466: Cut down list of other commits from 10 to 3 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <uT7O3Wwm7qagVcfLXJfZq3VtTbyCPpAYxAhhP1OcOEE=.20d53322-e29e-4a6e-b3b9-8d50057f5b6e@github.com>
References: <uT7O3Wwm7qagVcfLXJfZq3VtTbyCPpAYxAhhP1OcOEE=.20d53322-e29e-4a6e-b3b9-8d50057f5b6e@github.com>
Message-ID: <789l8LAUjEY4KWZ-fIRW0u9CWuxX6x73RcYK-u5q164=.4d5b3eef-5d78-4502-8b45-6012d654a07d@github.com>

> Skara prints a list of other commits that has been integrated before a PR is automatically rebased. I think the idea was to put transparency to the rebasing process, but in actuality it only adds noise.
> 
> I think it could be removed entirely (in general, I think the Skara bot messages are *waaaay* to chatty), but as a start, it the list could be shortened radically. I chose 3 as the lowest number that is still a "crowd".

Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:

  Unifying COMMIT_LIST_LIMIT constant

-------------

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1710/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1710/files/c8dd92b3..db27dca9

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=skara&pr=1710&range=01
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=skara&pr=1710&range=00-01

  Stats: 7 lines in 2 files changed: 2 ins; 2 del; 3 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1710.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/skara.git pull/1710/head:pull/1710

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1710

From erikj at openjdk.org  Tue Apr  1 13:15:37 2025
From: erikj at openjdk.org (Erik Joelsson)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 13:15:37 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2466: Cut down list of other commits from 10 to 3 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <789l8LAUjEY4KWZ-fIRW0u9CWuxX6x73RcYK-u5q164=.4d5b3eef-5d78-4502-8b45-6012d654a07d@github.com>
References: <uT7O3Wwm7qagVcfLXJfZq3VtTbyCPpAYxAhhP1OcOEE=.20d53322-e29e-4a6e-b3b9-8d50057f5b6e@github.com>
 <789l8LAUjEY4KWZ-fIRW0u9CWuxX6x73RcYK-u5q164=.4d5b3eef-5d78-4502-8b45-6012d654a07d@github.com>
Message-ID: <AUfAKkRny326KfgAC9-LrgyJibOjL77CxGSyi35wGi4=.3701fa8b-4bce-419e-acea-85758aa5b013@github.com>

On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 11:23:02 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Skara prints a list of other commits that has been integrated before a PR is automatically rebased. I think the idea was to put transparency to the rebasing process, but in actuality it only adds noise.
>> 
>> I think it could be removed entirely (in general, I think the Skara bot messages are *waaaay* to chatty), but as a start, it the list could be shortened radically. I chose 3 as the lowest number that is still a "crowd".
>
> Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Unifying COMMIT_LIST_LIMIT constant

Marked as reviewed by erikj (Lead).

-------------

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1710#pullrequestreview-2732649358

From ihse at openjdk.org  Tue Apr  1 15:10:42 2025
From: ihse at openjdk.org (Magnus Ihse Bursie)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 15:10:42 GMT
Subject: Integrated: 2466: Cut down list of other commits from 10 to 3
In-Reply-To: <uT7O3Wwm7qagVcfLXJfZq3VtTbyCPpAYxAhhP1OcOEE=.20d53322-e29e-4a6e-b3b9-8d50057f5b6e@github.com>
References: <uT7O3Wwm7qagVcfLXJfZq3VtTbyCPpAYxAhhP1OcOEE=.20d53322-e29e-4a6e-b3b9-8d50057f5b6e@github.com>
Message-ID: <0jUsISMXIF3KcVf-ZaBBW6_oMbyHea6LcgGNcSZDjVY=.4d5d4b39-113f-4b33-b1de-12112ffba41f@github.com>

On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:29:37 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Skara prints a list of other commits that has been integrated before a PR is automatically rebased. I think the idea was to put transparency to the rebasing process, but in actuality it only adds noise.
> 
> I think it could be removed entirely (in general, I think the Skara bot messages are *waaaay* to chatty), but as a start, it the list could be shortened radically. I chose 3 as the lowest number that is still a "crowd".

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: 272b2edd
Author:    Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/skara/commit/272b2eddc9d6f4f15f638045b24d633015c97127
Stats:     8 lines in 2 files changed: 2 ins; 0 del; 6 mod

2466: Cut down list of other commits from 10 to 3

Reviewed-by: erikj

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1710

From erikj at openjdk.org  Mon Apr  7 22:14:39 2025
From: erikj at openjdk.org (Erik Joelsson)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 22:14:39 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2470: Mailing list bridge is failing to send some emails
Message-ID: <2it5kEG_HBc3qgat1jTDAm-iDqVu8aJoMO8EbZM8B3g=.2deb6221-d06f-4b77-8768-708ae4ac1c01@github.com>

The mlbridge bot sometimes fails to send emails based on PR activity/comments. The emails get generated and the bot attempts to store them in the mailing list archive repo, which we are storing in a GitLab server. The PUT call returns 400, which the bot interprets as a failure and aborts the WorkItem. On the next run of that WorkItem, the emails are found in the archive, which the bot interprets as having been sent, so no new attempt is made. The issue here is that GitLab returns a failure code but still stores the data.

To try to work around this, I'm adding a fallback check when receiving 400 when storing a file. The check tries to fetch the current contents of the file and compares it to what we attempted to store. If equal, the error is ignored and the store procedure is considered successful.

Testing this is tricky, so this code is basically untested. I'm also adding more logging and more information to existing related logging so that we can monitor this behavior better and see if this workaround is having any effect.

-------------

Commit messages:
 - SKARA-2470

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1713/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=skara&pr=1713&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/SKARA-2470
  Stats: 22 lines in 3 files changed: 17 ins; 1 del; 4 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1713.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/skara.git pull/1713/head:pull/1713

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1713

From zsong at openjdk.org  Mon Apr  7 22:34:34 2025
From: zsong at openjdk.org (Zhao Song)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 22:34:34 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2470: Mailing list bridge is failing to send some emails
In-Reply-To: <2it5kEG_HBc3qgat1jTDAm-iDqVu8aJoMO8EbZM8B3g=.2deb6221-d06f-4b77-8768-708ae4ac1c01@github.com>
References: <2it5kEG_HBc3qgat1jTDAm-iDqVu8aJoMO8EbZM8B3g=.2deb6221-d06f-4b77-8768-708ae4ac1c01@github.com>
Message-ID: <wJupXdmEswCDv5XapG61GZS2V2rlDVYgZKNfmvgIbJA=.325bfe72-b809-4f0a-ac4d-a736fc7074a5@github.com>

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 22:09:44 GMT, Erik Joelsson <erikj at openjdk.org> wrote:

> The mlbridge bot sometimes fails to send emails based on PR activity/comments. The emails get generated and the bot attempts to store them in the mailing list archive repo, which we are storing in a GitLab server. The PUT call returns 400, which the bot interprets as a failure and aborts the WorkItem. On the next run of that WorkItem, the emails are found in the archive, which the bot interprets as having been sent, so no new attempt is made. The issue here is that GitLab returns a failure code but still stores the data.
> 
> To try to work around this, I'm adding a fallback check when receiving 400 when storing a file. The check tries to fetch the current contents of the file and compares it to what we attempted to store. If equal, the error is ignored and the store procedure is considered successful.
> 
> Testing this is tricky, so this code is basically untested. I'm also adding more logging and more information to existing related logging so that we can monitor this behavior better and see if this workaround is having any effect.

Marked as reviewed by zsong (Reviewer).

-------------

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1713#pullrequestreview-2748257616

From erikj at openjdk.org  Mon Apr  7 23:38:55 2025
From: erikj at openjdk.org (Erik Joelsson)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 23:38:55 GMT
Subject: Integrated: 2470: Mailing list bridge is failing to send some emails
In-Reply-To: <2it5kEG_HBc3qgat1jTDAm-iDqVu8aJoMO8EbZM8B3g=.2deb6221-d06f-4b77-8768-708ae4ac1c01@github.com>
References: <2it5kEG_HBc3qgat1jTDAm-iDqVu8aJoMO8EbZM8B3g=.2deb6221-d06f-4b77-8768-708ae4ac1c01@github.com>
Message-ID: <qZ0QAfTTHmP2fg6ZZM-Br7okZqPU2ud0oGH1gOo4JZQ=.211503bd-c73f-4c76-85d1-e36d9c4b9e3d@github.com>

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 22:09:44 GMT, Erik Joelsson <erikj at openjdk.org> wrote:

> The mlbridge bot sometimes fails to send emails based on PR activity/comments. The emails get generated and the bot attempts to store them in the mailing list archive repo, which we are storing in a GitLab server. The PUT call returns 400, which the bot interprets as a failure and aborts the WorkItem. On the next run of that WorkItem, the emails are found in the archive, which the bot interprets as having been sent, so no new attempt is made. The issue here is that GitLab returns a failure code but still stores the data.
> 
> To try to work around this, I'm adding a fallback check when receiving 400 when storing a file. The check tries to fetch the current contents of the file and compares it to what we attempted to store. If equal, the error is ignored and the store procedure is considered successful.
> 
> Testing this is tricky, so this code is basically untested. I'm also adding more logging and more information to existing related logging so that we can monitor this behavior better and see if this workaround is having any effect.

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: 40bd8896
Author:    Erik Joelsson <erikj at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/skara/commit/40bd889665ae8227b34c4b5a787320e27721b57c
Stats:     22 lines in 3 files changed: 17 ins; 1 del; 4 mod

2470: Mailing list bridge is failing to send some emails

Reviewed-by: zsong

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1713

From erikj at openjdk.org  Tue Apr  8 21:12:36 2025
From: erikj at openjdk.org (Erik Joelsson)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 21:12:36 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2470: Mailing list bridge is failing to send some emails
In-Reply-To: <2it5kEG_HBc3qgat1jTDAm-iDqVu8aJoMO8EbZM8B3g=.2deb6221-d06f-4b77-8768-708ae4ac1c01@github.com>
References: <2it5kEG_HBc3qgat1jTDAm-iDqVu8aJoMO8EbZM8B3g=.2deb6221-d06f-4b77-8768-708ae4ac1c01@github.com>
Message-ID: <mTYShvvgKYmcwuvGcodh4hHO2ZmV6v_G8WWUUSFBuCw=.a1775a32-08fd-43d4-b9ba-eb843f8dd3cc@github.com>

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 22:09:44 GMT, Erik Joelsson <erikj at openjdk.org> wrote:

> The mlbridge bot sometimes fails to send emails based on PR activity/comments. The emails get generated and the bot attempts to store them in the mailing list archive repo, which we are storing in a GitLab server. The PUT call returns 400, which the bot interprets as a failure and aborts the WorkItem. On the next run of that WorkItem, the emails are found in the archive, which the bot interprets as having been sent, so no new attempt is made. The issue here is that GitLab returns a failure code but still stores the data.
> 
> To try to work around this, I'm adding a fallback check when receiving 400 when storing a file. The check tries to fetch the current contents of the file and compares it to what we attempted to store. If equal, the error is ignored and the store procedure is considered successful.
> 
> Testing this is tricky, so this code is basically untested. I'm also adding more logging and more information to existing related logging so that we can monitor this behavior better and see if this workaround is having any effect.

Test comment

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1713#issuecomment-2787670387

From zsong at openjdk.org  Thu Apr 17 17:39:09 2025
From: zsong at openjdk.org (Zhao Song)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 17:39:09 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2479: PR marked as ready with jcheck error
Message-ID: <pC8sLFohsDlKXoE9U6n1XwnLVe64l1DukHJ1XFW1VzM=.da6c79d6-7369-4dae-a8e1-ece7a409360d@github.com>

Currently, when determining if a PR is ready, if the PR doesn't require a review, it also ignores all jcheck failures. Instead, only reviewers check should be ignored in this case.

-------------

Commit messages:
 - add test
 - update
 - SKARA-2479

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=skara&pr=1714&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/SKARA-2479
  Stats: 76 lines in 2 files changed: 75 ins; 0 del; 1 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/skara.git pull/1714/head:pull/1714

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714

From erikj at openjdk.org  Thu Apr 17 17:54:28 2025
From: erikj at openjdk.org (Erik Joelsson)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 17:54:28 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2479: PR marked as ready with jcheck error
In-Reply-To: <pC8sLFohsDlKXoE9U6n1XwnLVe64l1DukHJ1XFW1VzM=.da6c79d6-7369-4dae-a8e1-ece7a409360d@github.com>
References: <pC8sLFohsDlKXoE9U6n1XwnLVe64l1DukHJ1XFW1VzM=.da6c79d6-7369-4dae-a8e1-ece7a409360d@github.com>
Message-ID: <ZHQiXzcCfV9ZvqRb_9t_-QcDkjwZ0ZppNN5IBEL9QgE=.80d2309f-abfe-41e2-91b7-45a1d94cb811@github.com>

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 17:32:48 GMT, Zhao Song <zsong at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Currently, when determining if a PR is ready, if the PR doesn't require a review, it also ignores all jcheck failures. Instead, only reviewers check should be ignored in this case.

bots/pr/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/pr/CheckRun.java line 1473:

> 1471: 
> 1472:             var onlyReviewersCheckFailed = visitor.errorFailedChecksMessages().stream()
> 1473:                     .allMatch(message -> message.contains("Too few reviewers"));

This looks awkward. Can we extend the Visitor with an explicit method for this instead? The role of the Visitor implementation is to gather the jcheck errors and present them in a way that makes sense to the caller, in this case the pr bot classes.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714#discussion_r2049416832

From zsong at openjdk.org  Thu Apr 17 18:27:07 2025
From: zsong at openjdk.org (Zhao Song)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 18:27:07 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2479: PR marked as ready with jcheck error [v2]
In-Reply-To: <pC8sLFohsDlKXoE9U6n1XwnLVe64l1DukHJ1XFW1VzM=.da6c79d6-7369-4dae-a8e1-ece7a409360d@github.com>
References: <pC8sLFohsDlKXoE9U6n1XwnLVe64l1DukHJ1XFW1VzM=.da6c79d6-7369-4dae-a8e1-ece7a409360d@github.com>
Message-ID: <RVPC3KXnkriA-O3HZ2Et03lUhEjyrTKdlks7HIg-XLw=.818cb5d8-e12e-4b2d-8c21-6769a41b84d0@github.com>

> Currently, when determining if a PR is ready, if the PR doesn't require a review, it also ignores all jcheck failures. Instead, only reviewers check should be ignored in this case.

Zhao Song has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:

  review comment

-------------

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714/files/46b17c15..18043ee6

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=skara&pr=1714&range=01
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=skara&pr=1714&range=00-01

  Stats: 13 lines in 2 files changed: 9 ins; 3 del; 1 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/skara.git pull/1714/head:pull/1714

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714

From zsong at openjdk.org  Thu Apr 17 18:47:01 2025
From: zsong at openjdk.org (Zhao Song)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 18:47:01 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2481: Update .github/workflows/ci.yml for Linux
Message-ID: <A3Iy-EWT1mO3-63QkBqoVVuM8JhbjPy_M8T0R6i_LcU=.f42b0156-4e60-4d5a-a1b6-5694ed1c4e2c@github.com>

Ubuntu-20.04 was deprecated on April 15th, 2025.
https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/11101

-------------

Commit messages:
 - SKARA-2481

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1715/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=skara&pr=1715&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/SKARA-2481
  Stats: 1 line in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 1 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1715.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/skara.git pull/1715/head:pull/1715

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1715

From erikj at openjdk.org  Thu Apr 17 19:43:05 2025
From: erikj at openjdk.org (Erik Joelsson)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 19:43:05 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2479: PR marked as ready with jcheck error [v2]
In-Reply-To: <RVPC3KXnkriA-O3HZ2Et03lUhEjyrTKdlks7HIg-XLw=.818cb5d8-e12e-4b2d-8c21-6769a41b84d0@github.com>
References: <pC8sLFohsDlKXoE9U6n1XwnLVe64l1DukHJ1XFW1VzM=.da6c79d6-7369-4dae-a8e1-ece7a409360d@github.com>
 <RVPC3KXnkriA-O3HZ2Et03lUhEjyrTKdlks7HIg-XLw=.818cb5d8-e12e-4b2d-8c21-6769a41b84d0@github.com>
Message-ID: <0wN249B23xaA2DvAdry3uKv0L8yaLPnu2mwxl-DS2P4=.343750d9-5859-439a-b4c5-b697105df785@github.com>

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 18:27:07 GMT, Zhao Song <zsong at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Currently, when determining if a PR is ready, if the PR doesn't require a review, it also ignores all jcheck failures. Instead, only reviewers check should be ignored in this case.
>
> Zhao Song has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   review comment

bots/pr/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/pr/PullRequestCheckIssueVisitor.java line 75:

> 73:     }
> 74: 
> 75:     List<String> errorFailedCheckMessagesWithoutReviewersCheck() {

This is a mouthful. I was thinking something like `boolean tooFewReviewers()`.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714#discussion_r2049541313

From erikj at openjdk.org  Thu Apr 17 19:43:45 2025
From: erikj at openjdk.org (Erik Joelsson)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 19:43:45 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2481: Update .github/workflows/ci.yml for Linux
In-Reply-To: <A3Iy-EWT1mO3-63QkBqoVVuM8JhbjPy_M8T0R6i_LcU=.f42b0156-4e60-4d5a-a1b6-5694ed1c4e2c@github.com>
References: <A3Iy-EWT1mO3-63QkBqoVVuM8JhbjPy_M8T0R6i_LcU=.f42b0156-4e60-4d5a-a1b6-5694ed1c4e2c@github.com>
Message-ID: <zkRVWZscD56dixBkfdFRTEopzWlhNqf-b7y7MdsYGo0=.9f46acec-765e-4029-ada5-09e1a44941af@github.com>

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 18:29:00 GMT, Zhao Song <zsong at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Ubuntu-20.04 was deprecated on April 15th, 2025.
> https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/11101

Marked as reviewed by erikj (Lead).

-------------

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1715#pullrequestreview-2776740313

From zsong at openjdk.org  Thu Apr 17 19:52:02 2025
From: zsong at openjdk.org (Zhao Song)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 19:52:02 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2481: Update .github/workflows/ci.yml for Linux
In-Reply-To: <A3Iy-EWT1mO3-63QkBqoVVuM8JhbjPy_M8T0R6i_LcU=.f42b0156-4e60-4d5a-a1b6-5694ed1c4e2c@github.com>
References: <A3Iy-EWT1mO3-63QkBqoVVuM8JhbjPy_M8T0R6i_LcU=.f42b0156-4e60-4d5a-a1b6-5694ed1c4e2c@github.com>
Message-ID: <_POUFjU_mbccK-TJMALt4pb9nTT4_LKQpOOLOQMFBqE=.2ccac53a-ed52-4b19-8392-a240341a08f9@github.com>

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 18:29:00 GMT, Zhao Song <zsong at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Ubuntu-20.04 was deprecated on April 15th, 2025.
> https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/11101

Thanks!

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1715#issuecomment-2813875350

From zsong at openjdk.org  Thu Apr 17 19:52:02 2025
From: zsong at openjdk.org (Zhao Song)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 19:52:02 GMT
Subject: Integrated: 2481: Update .github/workflows/ci.yml for Linux
In-Reply-To: <A3Iy-EWT1mO3-63QkBqoVVuM8JhbjPy_M8T0R6i_LcU=.f42b0156-4e60-4d5a-a1b6-5694ed1c4e2c@github.com>
References: <A3Iy-EWT1mO3-63QkBqoVVuM8JhbjPy_M8T0R6i_LcU=.f42b0156-4e60-4d5a-a1b6-5694ed1c4e2c@github.com>
Message-ID: <OKH2tAIu7sW8AzjYfxu9xU1lp33tB23lYNEJdr4xfyk=.262da577-da52-48a8-a240-e416477e2c98@github.com>

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 18:29:00 GMT, Zhao Song <zsong at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Ubuntu-20.04 was deprecated on April 15th, 2025.
> https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/11101

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: dfa2d598
Author:    Zhao Song <zsong at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/skara/commit/dfa2d598564fd363b9a0d5e531f055d917ab652d
Stats:     1 line in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 1 mod

2481: Update .github/workflows/ci.yml for Linux

Reviewed-by: erikj

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1715

From zsong at openjdk.org  Thu Apr 17 20:02:23 2025
From: zsong at openjdk.org (Zhao Song)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 20:02:23 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2479: PR marked as ready with jcheck error [v2]
In-Reply-To: <0wN249B23xaA2DvAdry3uKv0L8yaLPnu2mwxl-DS2P4=.343750d9-5859-439a-b4c5-b697105df785@github.com>
References: <pC8sLFohsDlKXoE9U6n1XwnLVe64l1DukHJ1XFW1VzM=.da6c79d6-7369-4dae-a8e1-ece7a409360d@github.com>
 <RVPC3KXnkriA-O3HZ2Et03lUhEjyrTKdlks7HIg-XLw=.818cb5d8-e12e-4b2d-8c21-6769a41b84d0@github.com>
 <0wN249B23xaA2DvAdry3uKv0L8yaLPnu2mwxl-DS2P4=.343750d9-5859-439a-b4c5-b697105df785@github.com>
Message-ID: <Bot0Wbc5FwrpqA_GSU2aFlIHV4CTWSwRdhPJHl8DdJQ=.015af3c7-b8ce-41bd-a9e9-540895816e30@github.com>

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 19:40:51 GMT, Erik Joelsson <erikj at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Zhao Song has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   review comment
>
> bots/pr/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/pr/PullRequestCheckIssueVisitor.java line 75:
> 
>> 73:     }
>> 74: 
>> 75:     List<String> errorFailedCheckMessagesWithoutReviewersCheck() {
> 
> This is a mouthful. I was thinking something like `boolean tooFewReviewers()`.

Do you mean that `tooFewReviewers()` should return true when there is only ReviewersCheck Failure?

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714#discussion_r2049561152

From zsong at openjdk.org  Thu Apr 17 20:10:24 2025
From: zsong at openjdk.org (Zhao Song)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 20:10:24 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2479: PR marked as ready with jcheck error [v2]
In-Reply-To: <Bot0Wbc5FwrpqA_GSU2aFlIHV4CTWSwRdhPJHl8DdJQ=.015af3c7-b8ce-41bd-a9e9-540895816e30@github.com>
References: <pC8sLFohsDlKXoE9U6n1XwnLVe64l1DukHJ1XFW1VzM=.da6c79d6-7369-4dae-a8e1-ece7a409360d@github.com>
 <RVPC3KXnkriA-O3HZ2Et03lUhEjyrTKdlks7HIg-XLw=.818cb5d8-e12e-4b2d-8c21-6769a41b84d0@github.com>
 <0wN249B23xaA2DvAdry3uKv0L8yaLPnu2mwxl-DS2P4=.343750d9-5859-439a-b4c5-b697105df785@github.com>
 <Bot0Wbc5FwrpqA_GSU2aFlIHV4CTWSwRdhPJHl8DdJQ=.015af3c7-b8ce-41bd-a9e9-540895816e30@github.com>
Message-ID: <uWZwcKUqai4VdcCqFBDw5o_TMTIYRuKOnAXHcUSeHJc=.e33efd8b-a3bd-4a83-853b-2646fbabe589@github.com>

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 20:00:18 GMT, Zhao Song <zsong at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> bots/pr/src/main/java/org/openjdk/skara/bots/pr/PullRequestCheckIssueVisitor.java line 75:
>> 
>>> 73:     }
>>> 74: 
>>> 75:     List<String> errorFailedCheckMessagesWithoutReviewersCheck() {
>> 
>> This is a mouthful. I was thinking something like `boolean tooFewReviewers()`.
>
> Do you mean that `tooFewReviewers()` should return true when there is only ReviewersCheck Failure?

Or does `tooFewReviewers()` return true when there is a ReviewersCheck Failure in the list?
If so, the logic should be  like this
`            var readyToPostApprovalNeededComment = readyForReview &&
                    ((!reviewNeeded && visitor.errorFailedChecksMessages().size() == 1 && visitor.tooFewReviewers()) ||
                            visitor.errorFailedChecksMessages().isEmpty()) &&
                    integrationBlockers.isEmpty() &&
                    !statusMessage.contains(TEMPORARY_ISSUE_FAILURE_MARKER);`

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714#discussion_r2049573361

From erikj at openjdk.org  Thu Apr 17 20:26:26 2025
From: erikj at openjdk.org (Erik Joelsson)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 20:26:26 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2479: PR marked as ready with jcheck error [v2]
In-Reply-To: <uWZwcKUqai4VdcCqFBDw5o_TMTIYRuKOnAXHcUSeHJc=.e33efd8b-a3bd-4a83-853b-2646fbabe589@github.com>
References: <pC8sLFohsDlKXoE9U6n1XwnLVe64l1DukHJ1XFW1VzM=.da6c79d6-7369-4dae-a8e1-ece7a409360d@github.com>
 <RVPC3KXnkriA-O3HZ2Et03lUhEjyrTKdlks7HIg-XLw=.818cb5d8-e12e-4b2d-8c21-6769a41b84d0@github.com>
 <0wN249B23xaA2DvAdry3uKv0L8yaLPnu2mwxl-DS2P4=.343750d9-5859-439a-b4c5-b697105df785@github.com>
 <Bot0Wbc5FwrpqA_GSU2aFlIHV4CTWSwRdhPJHl8DdJQ=.015af3c7-b8ce-41bd-a9e9-540895816e30@github.com>
 <uWZwcKUqai4VdcCqFBDw5o_TMTIYRuKOnAXHcUSeHJc=.e33efd8b-a3bd-4a83-853b-2646fbabe589@github.com>
Message-ID: <g72orI1ims7A1Ru-ZV9KsG6ppQQ4BFJ8LKF8CC5GhKA=.50c990f2-2916-4536-baf0-4938797f3a57@github.com>

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 20:08:01 GMT, Zhao Song <zsong at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Do you mean that `tooFewReviewers()` should return true when there is only ReviewersCheck Failure?
>
> Or does `tooFewReviewers()` return true when there is a ReviewersCheck Failure in the list?
> If so, the logic should be  like this
> `            var readyToPostApprovalNeededComment = readyForReview &&
>                     ((!reviewNeeded && visitor.errorFailedChecksMessages().size() == 1 && visitor.tooFewReviewers()) ||
>                             visitor.errorFailedChecksMessages().isEmpty()) &&
>                     integrationBlockers.isEmpty() &&
>                     !statusMessage.contains(TEMPORARY_ISSUE_FAILURE_MARKER);`

Right, I didn't think that through and this gets messy and I think it's because we aren't using the right abstraction. Can we just push something like this down to the visitor:

boolean hasErrors(boolean reviewNeeded)

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714#discussion_r2049597512

From zsong at openjdk.org  Thu Apr 17 20:34:54 2025
From: zsong at openjdk.org (Zhao Song)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 20:34:54 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2479: PR marked as ready with jcheck error [v2]
In-Reply-To: <g72orI1ims7A1Ru-ZV9KsG6ppQQ4BFJ8LKF8CC5GhKA=.50c990f2-2916-4536-baf0-4938797f3a57@github.com>
References: <pC8sLFohsDlKXoE9U6n1XwnLVe64l1DukHJ1XFW1VzM=.da6c79d6-7369-4dae-a8e1-ece7a409360d@github.com>
 <RVPC3KXnkriA-O3HZ2Et03lUhEjyrTKdlks7HIg-XLw=.818cb5d8-e12e-4b2d-8c21-6769a41b84d0@github.com>
 <0wN249B23xaA2DvAdry3uKv0L8yaLPnu2mwxl-DS2P4=.343750d9-5859-439a-b4c5-b697105df785@github.com>
 <Bot0Wbc5FwrpqA_GSU2aFlIHV4CTWSwRdhPJHl8DdJQ=.015af3c7-b8ce-41bd-a9e9-540895816e30@github.com>
 <uWZwcKUqai4VdcCqFBDw5o_TMTIYRuKOnAXHcUSeHJc=.e33efd8b-a3bd-4a83-853b-2646fbabe589@github.com>
 <g72orI1ims7A1Ru-ZV9KsG6ppQQ4BFJ8LKF8CC5GhKA=.50c990f2-2916-4536-baf0-4938797f3a57@github.com>
Message-ID: <XeCytLwx6oI7dm6sIkSf1FQ-R-7ZWGGm2zMS33QVxew=.b6129a7e-c3d4-498e-914e-933bf27fabc8@github.com>

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 20:24:19 GMT, Erik Joelsson <erikj at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Or does `tooFewReviewers()` return true when there is a ReviewersCheck Failure in the list?
>> If so, the logic should be  like this
>> `            var readyToPostApprovalNeededComment = readyForReview &&
>>                     ((!reviewNeeded && visitor.errorFailedChecksMessages().size() == 1 && visitor.tooFewReviewers()) ||
>>                             visitor.errorFailedChecksMessages().isEmpty()) &&
>>                     integrationBlockers.isEmpty() &&
>>                     !statusMessage.contains(TEMPORARY_ISSUE_FAILURE_MARKER);`
>
> Right, I didn't think that through and this gets messy and I think it's because we aren't using the right abstraction. Can we just push something like this down to the visitor:
> 
> boolean hasErrors(boolean reviewNeeded)

Yes, sounds good

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714#discussion_r2049612066

From zsong at openjdk.org  Thu Apr 17 21:40:47 2025
From: zsong at openjdk.org (Zhao Song)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 21:40:47 GMT
Subject: RFR: 2479: PR marked as ready with jcheck error [v3]
In-Reply-To: <pC8sLFohsDlKXoE9U6n1XwnLVe64l1DukHJ1XFW1VzM=.da6c79d6-7369-4dae-a8e1-ece7a409360d@github.com>
References: <pC8sLFohsDlKXoE9U6n1XwnLVe64l1DukHJ1XFW1VzM=.da6c79d6-7369-4dae-a8e1-ece7a409360d@github.com>
Message-ID: <DJqPFk1dBxbChJJlZJlBb7CHecnQeqZqSKsVqIMXQVI=.eafbebb0-60f9-4577-818a-420f097411fd@github.com>

> Currently, when determining if a PR is ready, if the PR doesn't require a review, it also ignores all jcheck failures. Instead, only reviewers check should be ignored in this case.

Zhao Song has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains six additional commits since the last revision:

 - review comment
 - Merge branch 'master' into SKARA-2479
 - review comment
 - add test
 - update
 - SKARA-2479

-------------

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714/files/18043ee6..28f368b0

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=skara&pr=1714&range=02
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=skara&pr=1714&range=01-02

  Stats: 11 lines in 3 files changed: 2 ins; 1 del; 8 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/skara.git pull/1714/head:pull/1714

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/skara/pull/1714