Hi William, On 06/01/26 at 09:40 +0100, William Desportes wrote: > Hi Lucas, > > Thanks for the UI improvement on mobile devices, the summary table is a bit > too large but that's okay now. > > Could you add a search to the table results that summarize codes. So I can > see all 2xx codes at once.
I think that one way to do that would be to rely on datatables to list all valid values in the column, and provide a way to select/deselect specific values. Added to To-Do. > Also, the package search input would benefit from supporting % tokens to > match package names. > Or just adjust the query from strict equals to match anything that starts > with the user input: $q% Similarly, we could probably leverage datables for that. > Do you think a re-try button could be added like there is in other debian > services? > > https://orig-check.debian.net/orig-check/result/c2b2a9f8b88011503afd702efadbe98b1542f162f0b25257b7730825bb199611 > > This one failed because QA failed to connect to upstream. > Do you think it would be worth my time to contribute some code to detect such > failed results so they are automatically re tried? Currently, retries are implemented as follows: - there's an 'obsolete' field in the results table that mark results that should be retry if there's not already a more recent result - there's code that mark some failures obsolete after 7 days: https://salsa.debian.org/lucas/debaudit/-/blob/main/debaudit/cli.py?ref_type=heads#L547 But: - there's no interface to request a specific retry (which would translate to mark the result as obsolete, so that it's retried at the next hourly run). Gitlab-based auth for that would be nice indeed. I need to understand how that would work. - I special-case some uscan warnings to mark failures as 'HTTP error' but I missed the case above (it is unusual because it failed when downloading the archive, not when reading the webpage) > Also, I am quite sure I can make some uscan version not found find the > version they need. But would you be open to such tricks? A new code is > probably needed. > > "Found after uscan modification." something like that. I think that it would be better to improve uscan directly (in the devscripts package) instead. The checkers run inside a container with devscripts from testing, so it's easy to update to a newer uscan. Thanks for all the feedback. Patches welcomed as well of course (the instructions to setup a development environment could be improved too, so feel really free to ask). Lucas
