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

RHOAIENG-8554: Add static-checks GitHub action for go code #345

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 26, 2024

Conversation

jiridanek
Copy link
Member

@jiridanek jiridanek commented Jun 14, 2024

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHOAIENG-8554

Description

Adds static-checks GitHub action for go code

How Has This Been Tested?

See the GHA run

Merge criteria:

  • The commits are squashed in a cohesive manner and have meaningful messages.
  • Testing instructions have been added in the PR body (for PRs involving changes that are not immediately obvious).
  • The developer has manually tested the changes and verified that the changes work

@jiridanek jiridanek self-assigned this Jun 14, 2024
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from atheo89 and dibryant June 14, 2024 08:56
@jiridanek jiridanek removed their assignment Jun 14, 2024
@jiridanek jiridanek changed the title Add static-checks GitHub action for go code RHOAIENG-8554: Add static-checks GitHub action for go code Jun 14, 2024
@jiridanek jiridanek force-pushed the jd_static_checks branch 5 times, most recently from 56be1fd to d8045fa Compare June 14, 2024 10:11
Copy link
Member

@atheo89 atheo89 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I put a small suggestion.

@jiridanek jiridanek self-assigned this Jun 14, 2024
@jstourac
Copy link
Member

LGTM, thanks!

The question for the vulnerability check - it is failing right now, do we intend to merge this as is even it's failing? I guess the answer is yes?

@jiridanek
Copy link
Member Author

The question for the vulnerability check - it is failing right now, do we intend to merge this as is even it's failing? I guess the answer is yes?

I'd merge it failing, and then would try to quickly fix it. It should not be too hard, I hope.

The govulncheck is less sensitive than snyk, it analyzes whether the vulnerable function is called and only reports of that is the case. So it should not report too many problems.

If I manage to improve the integration test to actually spawn a notebook in the clusters then we would be able to merge dependency updates when the test passes. No other manual work would be necessary to verify per PR.

Copy link
Member

@harshad16 harshad16 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for the work
/lgtm
/approve

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 26, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: harshad16

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@harshad16 harshad16 merged commit e4d2c44 into opendatahub-io:v1.7-branch Jun 26, 2024
11 of 15 checks passed
@jiridanek jiridanek deleted the jd_static_checks branch June 26, 2024 12:54
@harshad16
Copy link
Member

/cherrypick stable

@openshift-cherrypick-robot

@harshad16: new pull request created: #360

In response to this:

/cherrypick stable

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants