Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

DAOS-623 cq: correct TARGET for merge commits #14384

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 3, 2024

Conversation

daltonbohning
Copy link
Contributor

Skip-test: true
Skip-build: true

When determining the TARGET for githooks, we use merge-base to get the common ancestor. For merge commits we also need to get the common ancestor with respect to the merge itself so we don't include changes from the merge.

Required-githooks: true

Before requesting gatekeeper:

  • Two review approvals and any prior change requests have been resolved.
  • Testing is complete and all tests passed or there is a reason documented in the PR why it should be force landed and forced-landing tag is set.
  • Features: (or Test-tag*) commit pragma was used or there is a reason documented that there are no appropriate tags for this PR.
  • Commit messages follows the guidelines outlined here.
  • Any tests skipped by the ticket being addressed have been run and passed in the PR.

Gatekeeper:

  • You are the appropriate gatekeeper to be landing the patch.
  • The PR has 2 reviews by people familiar with the code, including appropriate owners.
  • Githooks were used. If not, request that user install them and check copyright dates.
  • Checkpatch issues are resolved. Pay particular attention to ones that will show up on future PRs.
  • All builds have passed. Check non-required builds for any new compiler warnings.
  • Sufficient testing is done. Check feature pragmas and test tags and that tests skipped for the ticket are run and now pass with the changes.
  • If applicable, the PR has addressed any potential version compatibility issues.
  • Check the target branch. If it is master branch, should the PR go to a feature branch? If it is a release branch, does it have merge approval in the JIRA ticket.
  • Extra checks if forced landing is requested
    • Review comments are sufficiently resolved, particularly by prior reviewers that requested changes.
    • No new NLT or valgrind warnings. Check the classic view.
    • Quick-build or Quick-functional is not used.
  • Fix the commit message upon landing. Check the standard here. Edit it to create a single commit. If necessary, ask submitter for a new summary.

Skip-test: true
Skip-build: true

When determining the TARGET for githooks, we use merge-base to get the
common ancestor. For merge commits we also need to get the common
ancestor with respect to the merge itself so we don't include changes
from the merge.

Required-githooks: true

Signed-off-by: Dalton Bohning <dalton.bohning@intel.com>
@daltonbohning daltonbohning self-assigned this May 15, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented May 15, 2024

Ticket title is 'Generic ticket for minor code cleanup and improvement'
Status is 'Resolved'
Labels: 'request_for_2.6,request_for_2.6.1'
https://daosio.atlassian.net/browse/DAOS-623

@daltonbohning daltonbohning marked this pull request as ready for review May 16, 2024 14:42
@daltonbohning daltonbohning requested a review from a team June 3, 2024 15:06
@daltonbohning daltonbohning added the forced-landing The PR has known failures or has intentionally reduced testing, but should still be landed. label Jun 3, 2024
@daltonbohning daltonbohning changed the title DAOS_623 cq: correct TARGET for merge commits DAOS-623 cq: correct TARGET for merge commits Jun 3, 2024
@daltonbohning
Copy link
Contributor Author

Skipped CI testing because only githooks are affected

@daltonbohning daltonbohning merged commit 51836e5 into master Jun 3, 2024
36 checks passed
@daltonbohning daltonbohning deleted the dbohning/daos-623-gofmt branch June 3, 2024 15:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
forced-landing The PR has known failures or has intentionally reduced testing, but should still be landed.
3 participants