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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Spotless is not verified on PRs #3349

Open
Cali0707 opened this issue Sep 19, 2023 · 11 comments · May be fixed by #4028
Open

Spotless is not verified on PRs #3349

Cali0707 opened this issue Sep 19, 2023 · 11 comments · May be fixed by #4028
Labels
good first issue Denotes an issue ready for a new contributor, according to the "help wanted" guidelines. help wanted Denotes an issue that needs help from a contributor. Must meet "help wanted" guidelines. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. triage/accepted Issues which should be fixed (post-triage)

Comments

@Cali0707
Copy link
Member

Describe the bug
It seems like the code is not being verified to match the formatting provided by Spotless on PRs, as subsequent PRs are reformatting the code when ./hack/update-codegen.sh is run.

Expected behavior
If code is not formatted properly, some CI job fails and indicates that the code should be formatted.

To Reproduce
Create a PR with Java code and don't run the Spotless format command.

Knative release version

Additional context
Add any other context about the problem here such as proposed priority
@Cali0707 Cali0707 added the kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. label Sep 19, 2023
@Cali0707
Copy link
Member Author

/cc @Leo6Leo

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

This issue is stale because it has been open for 90 days with no
activity. It will automatically close after 30 more days of
inactivity. Reopen the issue with /reopen. Mark the issue as
fresh by adding the comment /remove-lifecycle stale.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Dec 19, 2023
@Cali0707
Copy link
Member Author

/remove-lifecycle stale
/cc @Leo6Leo

@knative-prow knative-prow bot removed the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Dec 19, 2023
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

This issue is stale because it has been open for 90 days with no
activity. It will automatically close after 30 more days of
inactivity. Reopen the issue with /reopen. Mark the issue as
fresh by adding the comment /remove-lifecycle stale.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Mar 19, 2024
@Leo6Leo
Copy link
Contributor

Leo6Leo commented Mar 19, 2024

/remove-lifecycle stale

@knative-prow knative-prow bot removed the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Mar 19, 2024
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

This issue is stale because it has been open for 90 days with no
activity. It will automatically close after 30 more days of
inactivity. Reopen the issue with /reopen. Mark the issue as
fresh by adding the comment /remove-lifecycle stale.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Jun 18, 2024
@Cali0707
Copy link
Member Author

/remove-lifecycle stale
/triage accepted
@Leo6Leo could you add a bit more info about the spotless stuff and then mark it either help wanted or good first issue? I'd do it myself but I really don't know much about the spotless setup we have

@knative-prow knative-prow bot added triage/accepted Issues which should be fixed (post-triage) and removed lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. labels Jun 20, 2024
@Leo6Leo
Copy link
Contributor

Leo6Leo commented Jun 21, 2024

To add more details on this issue.

Spotless support is added to the knative-extensions eventing-kafka-broker repository in this PR. #3171

Problem: Spotless formatting is not checked during the CI process. Unformatted code can be merged without any CI checks failing.

Goal: Verify the code formatting in the CI.

Some more context:

/good-first-issue
/help-wanted

@knative-prow Knative Prow
Copy link

knative-prow bot commented Jun 21, 2024

@Leo6Leo:
This request has been marked as suitable for new contributors.

Please ensure the request meets the requirements listed here.

If this request no longer meets these requirements, the label can be removed
by commenting with the /remove-good-first-issue command.

In response to this:

To add more details on this issue.

Spotless support is added to the knative-extensions eventing-kafka-broker repository in this PR. #3171

Problem: Spotless formatting is not checked during the CI process. Unformatted code can be merged without any CI checks failing.

Goal: Verify the code formatting in the CI.

Some more context:

/good-first-issue
/help-wanted

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@knative-prow knative-prow bot added good first issue Denotes an issue ready for a new contributor, according to the "help wanted" guidelines. help wanted Denotes an issue that needs help from a contributor. Must meet "help wanted" guidelines. labels Jun 21, 2024
@prakhar479
Copy link

Hello guys, I wanted to work on this issue and needed some context and/or clues of where to start on this issue. More specifically, should the solution include a separate workflow or can it be incorporated into a preexisting GitHub workflow or maybe something else. Thanks for any and all help!

@Leo6Leo
Copy link
Contributor

Leo6Leo commented Aug 1, 2024

Hey @prakhar479 , thanks for the help!

Try to take a look at the comments here and the PR to get the context where to start on this issue.

should the solution include a separate workflow or can it be incorporated into a preexisting GitHub workflow or maybe something else.

It would be ideal to incorporated into our existing workflow, specifically the prow workflow. But we are open to suggestions! But just remember to provide with the concrete reasons on why it is better! So feel free to share your ideas if you have any better ones!

prakhar479 added a commit to prakhar479/eventing-kafka-broker that referenced this issue Aug 5, 2024
@prakhar479
* bug: added code formatting check in java test pull request hook (kn…
bd0dfb8 
…ative-extensions#3349)

Signed-off-by: Prakhar Singhal <[email protected]>
prakhar479 added a commit to prakhar479/eventing-kafka-broker that referenced this issue Aug 5, 2024
@prakhar479
Add Code formatting check post Pull-Request (knative-extensions#3349)
4909b5d 
* bug: added code formatting check in java test pull request hook
Signed-off-by: Prakhar Singhal <[email protected]>
@prakhar479 prakhar479 linked a pull request Aug 5, 2024 that will close this issue
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
good first issue Denotes an issue ready for a new contributor, according to the "help wanted" guidelines. help wanted Denotes an issue that needs help from a contributor. Must meet "help wanted" guidelines. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. triage/accepted Issues which should be fixed (post-triage)
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Add Code formatting check post Pull-Request (#3349) prakhar479/eventing-kafka-broker
3 participants
@Leo6Leo @Cali0707 @prakhar479