You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com> on 2023/03/27 14:46:36 UTC
Re: Codenarc integration process
Hi Guys,
For those who have used a non "PASSED" lozenge in wiki and resolved a related conversation in GH please update the status in wiki
TIA
Jacques
Le 28/01/2023 à 11:51, Gil Portenseigne a écrit :
> Oh sorry indeed i overview the review approach section.
>
> The table is nice, thanks Dan !
>
> 28 janv. 2023 09:37:50 Daniel Watford <da...@foomoo.co.uk>:
>
>> Hi Gil,
>>
>> I don't think a checklist is quite enough, assuming we want to track the
>> status of each file reviewed.
>>
>> From the review approach section:
>>
>>
>> - If in the reviewers opinion a file change will not change OFBiz
>> behaviour in any way they should mark the corresponding entry in the table
>> below as PASSED.
>> - If the reviewer identifies an issue with a changed file, then they
>> should add a comment in the PR on GitHub AND mark the corresponding entry
>> in the table below as WORK NEEDED.
>> - If the reviewer is unsure how to classify a changed file they should
>> mark the corresponding entry in the table below as UNSURE.
>> - In each of the above cases, the reviewer should add their name against
>> the entry in the table below.
>>
>> The checklist doesn't give us the opportunity to see what files need some
>> additional help.
>>
>> I'm sure there must be some way of getting Confluence to produce a table
>> from a list - I just don't seem to have found it yet! I'll play around with
>> Confluence a bit more.
>>
>> But as mentioned before, perhaps I am making too much out of tracking this
>> review.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Dan.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 17:05, gil.portenseigne <gi...@nereide.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I got to leave, but i generated in confluence a list of check, is that
>>> good enough ?
>>>
>>> Gil
>>> On 27/01/23 05:41, gil.portenseigne wrote:
>>>> Hello, indeed, that will generate much spam, i did some before reading
>>>> your answer.
>>>>
>>>> I'll have a look for conluence.
>>>>
>>>> Gil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27/01/23 04:14, Daniel Watford wrote:
>>>>> Hi Gill and Jacques,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think we should add comments to the PR to track the files that
>>> we
>>>>> have reviewed as I think each comment will appear separately in the
>>> PR's
>>>>> conversation view.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, with such a large PR where we hope to get several reviewers
>>>>> involved I think we do need a mechanism to track reviewed files.
>>>>>
>>>>> I created a page here - Codenarc integration review tracker - OFBiz
>>> Project
>>>>> Open Wiki - Apache Software Foundation
>>>>> <
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Codenarc+integration+review+tracker
>>>>> -
>>>>> suggesting an approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the approach is acceptable then all reviewers should be able to
>>> update
>>>>> the page as we go.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm stuck with finding a nice way to generate a table listing all the
>>>>> changed files and the review status of each file. I have included the
>>>>> commands to produce the list of files and shown some examples of how
>>> to add
>>>>> a header, but my attempts to turn that into something useful on a
>>>>> confluence page have not been fruitful.
>>>>>
>>>>> So two questions.
>>>>> - Is it worth coming up with a page/table to track this PR or am I just
>>>>> creating unnecessary admin work when we could use comments in the PR?
>>>>> - Can anyone create a table in Confluence that we could use to track
>>> the
>>>>> review effort?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 15:27, gil.portenseigne <
>>> gil.portenseigne@nereide.fr>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oops, i did a fixup commit with push force that remove all comments
>>> in
>>>>>> the pull request... Will not do that again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I fixed the detected typo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> gil
>>>>>> On 27/01/23 02:56, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>> …
>>> the pull
>>>>>>> …
>>> checkbox if a
>>>>>>> …
>>> request,
>>>>>>> …
>>> to the
>>>>>> same conclusion.
>>>>>>> …
>>> Could
>>>>>> be easy if it's the same unique words in every file.
>>>>>>> …
>>> concern
>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> …
>>> but it
>>>>>>> …
>>> file, to
>>>>>> let
>>>>>>> …
>>> "Review
>>>>>> changes" button allows you to comment, approve or request changes on
>>> this
>>>>>> file.
>>>>>>> …
>>> can
>>>>>> mark an
>>>>>>> …
>>> reviewers
>>>>>> can skip
>>>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daniel Watford
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Daniel Watford
Re: Codenarc integration process
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Everybody can now help by looking at https://nightlies.apache.org/ofbiz/trunk/groovyScripts.html (only trunk for now)
Le 12/04/2023 à 17:24, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> Hi Gil,
>
> IMO better forget it, that's not a big deal and it looks good enough to me at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-11167
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 12/04/2023 à 16:58, Gil Portenseigne a écrit :
>> Hello !
>>
>> I just squashed and committed the pull request, I would like to thank you again for the review work and animation !
>>
>> I failed the commit message due to the pull request feature i was not familiar about...
>>
>> I am not aware of "force push" policy in trunk that could allow me to fix that, i wanted to ask if it is allowed ?
>>
>> Gil
>>
>>
>> Le 27/03/2023 à 16:46, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>> For those who have used a non "PASSED" lozenge in wiki and resolved a related conversation in GH please update the status in wiki
>>>
>>> TIA
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> Le 28/01/2023 à 11:51, Gil Portenseigne a écrit :
>>>> Oh sorry indeed i overview the review approach section.
>>>>
>>>> The table is nice, thanks Dan !
>>>>
>>>> 28 janv. 2023 09:37:50 Daniel Watford <da...@foomoo.co.uk>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Gil,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think a checklist is quite enough, assuming we want to track the
>>>>> status of each file reviewed.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the review approach section:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - If in the reviewers opinion a file change will not change OFBiz
>>>>> behaviour in any way they should mark the corresponding entry in the table
>>>>> below as PASSED.
>>>>> - If the reviewer identifies an issue with a changed file, then they
>>>>> should add a comment in the PR on GitHub AND mark the corresponding entry
>>>>> in the table below as WORK NEEDED.
>>>>> - If the reviewer is unsure how to classify a changed file they should
>>>>> mark the corresponding entry in the table below as UNSURE.
>>>>> - In each of the above cases, the reviewer should add their name against
>>>>> the entry in the table below.
>>>>>
>>>>> The checklist doesn't give us the opportunity to see what files need some
>>>>> additional help.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure there must be some way of getting Confluence to produce a table
>>>>> from a list - I just don't seem to have found it yet! I'll play around with
>>>>> Confluence a bit more.
>>>>>
>>>>> But as mentioned before, perhaps I am making too much out of tracking this
>>>>> review.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 17:05, gil.portenseigne <gi...@nereide.fr>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I got to leave, but i generated in confluence a list of check, is that
>>>>>> good enough ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gil
>>>>>> On 27/01/23 05:41, gil.portenseigne wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello, indeed, that will generate much spam, i did some before reading
>>>>>>> your answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll have a look for conluence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 27/01/23 04:14, Daniel Watford wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Gill and Jacques,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think we should add comments to the PR to track the files that
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> have reviewed as I think each comment will appear separately in the
>>>>>> PR's
>>>>>>>> conversation view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, with such a large PR where we hope to get several reviewers
>>>>>>>> involved I think we do need a mechanism to track reviewed files.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I created a page here - Codenarc integration review tracker - OFBiz
>>>>>> Project
>>>>>>>> Open Wiki - Apache Software Foundation
>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Codenarc+integration+review+tracker
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> suggesting an approach.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the approach is acceptable then all reviewers should be able to
>>>>>> update
>>>>>>>> the page as we go.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm stuck with finding a nice way to generate a table listing all the
>>>>>>>> changed files and the review status of each file. I have included the
>>>>>>>> commands to produce the list of files and shown some examples of how
>>>>>> to add
>>>>>>>> a header, but my attempts to turn that into something useful on a
>>>>>>>> confluence page have not been fruitful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So two questions.
>>>>>>>> - Is it worth coming up with a page/table to track this PR or am I just
>>>>>>>> creating unnecessary admin work when we could use comments in the PR?
>>>>>>>> - Can anyone create a table in Confluence that we could use to track
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> review effort?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 15:27, gil.portenseigne <
>>>>>> gil.portenseigne@nereide.fr>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oops, i did a fixup commit with push force that remove all comments
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the pull request... Will not do that again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I fixed the detected typo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> gil
>>>>>>>>> On 27/01/23 02:56, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>> the pull
>>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>> checkbox if a
>>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>> request,
>>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>> same conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>> Could
>>>>>>>>> be easy if it's the same unique words in every file.
>>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>> concern
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>> but it
>>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>> file, to
>>>>>>>>> let
>>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>> "Review
>>>>>>>>> changes" button allows you to comment, approve or request changes on
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> file.
>>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> mark an
>>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>> reviewers
>>>>>>>>> can skip
>>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Daniel Watford
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daniel Watford
Re: Codenarc integration process
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Hi Gil,
IMO better forget it, that's not a big deal and it looks good enough to me at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-11167
Jacques
Le 12/04/2023 à 16:58, Gil Portenseigne a écrit :
> Hello !
>
> I just squashed and committed the pull request, I would like to thank you again for the review work and animation !
>
> I failed the commit message due to the pull request feature i was not familiar about...
>
> I am not aware of "force push" policy in trunk that could allow me to fix that, i wanted to ask if it is allowed ?
>
> Gil
>
>
> Le 27/03/2023 à 16:46, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> For those who have used a non "PASSED" lozenge in wiki and resolved a related conversation in GH please update the status in wiki
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> Le 28/01/2023 à 11:51, Gil Portenseigne a écrit :
>>> Oh sorry indeed i overview the review approach section.
>>>
>>> The table is nice, thanks Dan !
>>>
>>> 28 janv. 2023 09:37:50 Daniel Watford <da...@foomoo.co.uk>:
>>>
>>>> Hi Gil,
>>>>
>>>> I don't think a checklist is quite enough, assuming we want to track the
>>>> status of each file reviewed.
>>>>
>>>> From the review approach section:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - If in the reviewers opinion a file change will not change OFBiz
>>>> behaviour in any way they should mark the corresponding entry in the table
>>>> below as PASSED.
>>>> - If the reviewer identifies an issue with a changed file, then they
>>>> should add a comment in the PR on GitHub AND mark the corresponding entry
>>>> in the table below as WORK NEEDED.
>>>> - If the reviewer is unsure how to classify a changed file they should
>>>> mark the corresponding entry in the table below as UNSURE.
>>>> - In each of the above cases, the reviewer should add their name against
>>>> the entry in the table below.
>>>>
>>>> The checklist doesn't give us the opportunity to see what files need some
>>>> additional help.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure there must be some way of getting Confluence to produce a table
>>>> from a list - I just don't seem to have found it yet! I'll play around with
>>>> Confluence a bit more.
>>>>
>>>> But as mentioned before, perhaps I am making too much out of tracking this
>>>> review.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Dan.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 17:05, gil.portenseigne <gi...@nereide.fr>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I got to leave, but i generated in confluence a list of check, is that
>>>>> good enough ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gil
>>>>> On 27/01/23 05:41, gil.portenseigne wrote:
>>>>>> Hello, indeed, that will generate much spam, i did some before reading
>>>>>> your answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll have a look for conluence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gil
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27/01/23 04:14, Daniel Watford wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Gill and Jacques,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think we should add comments to the PR to track the files that
>>>>> we
>>>>>>> have reviewed as I think each comment will appear separately in the
>>>>> PR's
>>>>>>> conversation view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, with such a large PR where we hope to get several reviewers
>>>>>>> involved I think we do need a mechanism to track reviewed files.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I created a page here - Codenarc integration review tracker - OFBiz
>>>>> Project
>>>>>>> Open Wiki - Apache Software Foundation
>>>>>>> <
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Codenarc+integration+review+tracker
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> suggesting an approach.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the approach is acceptable then all reviewers should be able to
>>>>> update
>>>>>>> the page as we go.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm stuck with finding a nice way to generate a table listing all the
>>>>>>> changed files and the review status of each file. I have included the
>>>>>>> commands to produce the list of files and shown some examples of how
>>>>> to add
>>>>>>> a header, but my attempts to turn that into something useful on a
>>>>>>> confluence page have not been fruitful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So two questions.
>>>>>>> - Is it worth coming up with a page/table to track this PR or am I just
>>>>>>> creating unnecessary admin work when we could use comments in the PR?
>>>>>>> - Can anyone create a table in Confluence that we could use to track
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> review effort?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 15:27, gil.portenseigne <
>>>>> gil.portenseigne@nereide.fr>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oops, i did a fixup commit with push force that remove all comments
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the pull request... Will not do that again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I fixed the detected typo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> gil
>>>>>>>> On 27/01/23 02:56, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>> the pull
>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>> checkbox if a
>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>> request,
>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>> same conclusion.
>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>> Could
>>>>>>>> be easy if it's the same unique words in every file.
>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>> concern
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>> but it
>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>> file, to
>>>>>>>> let
>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>> "Review
>>>>>>>> changes" button allows you to comment, approve or request changes on
>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> file.
>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> mark an
>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>> reviewers
>>>>>>>> can skip
>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Daniel Watford
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel Watford
Re: Codenarc integration process
Posted by Gil Portenseigne <gi...@nereide.fr>.
Hello !
I just squashed and committed the pull request, I would like to thank
you again for the review work and animation !
I failed the commit message due to the pull request feature i was not
familiar about...
I am not aware of "force push" policy in trunk that could allow me to
fix that, i wanted to ask if it is allowed ?
Gil
Le 27/03/2023 à 16:46, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> Hi Guys,
>
> For those who have used a non "PASSED" lozenge in wiki and resolved a
> related conversation in GH please update the status in wiki
>
> TIA
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 28/01/2023 à 11:51, Gil Portenseigne a écrit :
>> Oh sorry indeed i overview the review approach section.
>>
>> The table is nice, thanks Dan !
>>
>> 28 janv. 2023 09:37:50 Daniel Watford <da...@foomoo.co.uk>:
>>
>>> Hi Gil,
>>>
>>> I don't think a checklist is quite enough, assuming we want to track
>>> the
>>> status of each file reviewed.
>>>
>>> From the review approach section:
>>>
>>>
>>> - If in the reviewers opinion a file change will not change OFBiz
>>> behaviour in any way they should mark the corresponding entry in
>>> the table
>>> below as PASSED.
>>> - If the reviewer identifies an issue with a changed file, then
>>> they
>>> should add a comment in the PR on GitHub AND mark the
>>> corresponding entry
>>> in the table below as WORK NEEDED.
>>> - If the reviewer is unsure how to classify a changed file they
>>> should
>>> mark the corresponding entry in the table below as UNSURE.
>>> - In each of the above cases, the reviewer should add their name
>>> against
>>> the entry in the table below.
>>>
>>> The checklist doesn't give us the opportunity to see what files need
>>> some
>>> additional help.
>>>
>>> I'm sure there must be some way of getting Confluence to produce a
>>> table
>>> from a list - I just don't seem to have found it yet! I'll play
>>> around with
>>> Confluence a bit more.
>>>
>>> But as mentioned before, perhaps I am making too much out of
>>> tracking this
>>> review.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Dan.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 17:05, gil.portenseigne
>>> <gi...@nereide.fr>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I got to leave, but i generated in confluence a list of check, is that
>>>> good enough ?
>>>>
>>>> Gil
>>>> On 27/01/23 05:41, gil.portenseigne wrote:
>>>>> Hello, indeed, that will generate much spam, i did some before
>>>>> reading
>>>>> your answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll have a look for conluence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27/01/23 04:14, Daniel Watford wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Gill and Jacques,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think we should add comments to the PR to track the files
>>>>>> that
>>>> we
>>>>>> have reviewed as I think each comment will appear separately in the
>>>> PR's
>>>>>> conversation view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, with such a large PR where we hope to get several reviewers
>>>>>> involved I think we do need a mechanism to track reviewed files.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I created a page here - Codenarc integration review tracker - OFBiz
>>>> Project
>>>>>> Open Wiki - Apache Software Foundation
>>>>>> <
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Codenarc+integration+review+tracker
>>>>
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> suggesting an approach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the approach is acceptable then all reviewers should be able to
>>>> update
>>>>>> the page as we go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm stuck with finding a nice way to generate a table listing all
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> changed files and the review status of each file. I have included
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> commands to produce the list of files and shown some examples of how
>>>> to add
>>>>>> a header, but my attempts to turn that into something useful on a
>>>>>> confluence page have not been fruitful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So two questions.
>>>>>> - Is it worth coming up with a page/table to track this PR or am
>>>>>> I just
>>>>>> creating unnecessary admin work when we could use comments in the
>>>>>> PR?
>>>>>> - Can anyone create a table in Confluence that we could use to track
>>>> the
>>>>>> review effort?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 15:27, gil.portenseigne <
>>>> gil.portenseigne@nereide.fr>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oops, i did a fixup commit with push force that remove all comments
>>>> in
>>>>>>> the pull request... Will not do that again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I fixed the detected typo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gil
>>>>>>> On 27/01/23 02:56, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>> …
>>>> the pull
>>>>>>>> …
>>>> checkbox if a
>>>>>>>> …
>>>> request,
>>>>>>>> …
>>>> to the
>>>>>>> same conclusion.
>>>>>>>> …
>>>> Could
>>>>>>> be easy if it's the same unique words in every file.
>>>>>>>> …
>>>> concern
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> …
>>>> but it
>>>>>>>> …
>>>> file, to
>>>>>>> let
>>>>>>>> …
>>>> "Review
>>>>>>> changes" button allows you to comment, approve or request
>>>>>>> changes on
>>>> this
>>>>>>> file.
>>>>>>>> …
>>>> can
>>>>>>> mark an
>>>>>>>> …
>>>> reviewers
>>>>>>> can skip
>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Daniel Watford
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Watford