Hi! On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 18:05, Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz> wrote: > > Hello, > > I have inherited Martin Liška's buildbot script that checks that all > sorts of autotools generated files, mainly configure scripts, were > re-generated correctly when appropriate. While the checks are hopefully > useful, they report issues surprisingly often and reporting them feels > especially unproductive. > > Could such checks be added to our server side push hooks so that commits > introducing these breakages would get refused automatically. While the > check might be a bit expensive, it only needs to be run on files > touching the generated files and/or the files these are generated from. > > Alternatively, Maxim, you seem to have an infrastructure that is capable > of sending email. Would you consider adding the check to your buildbot > instance and report issues automatically? The level of totally
After the discussions we had during Cauldron, I actually thought we should add such a bot. Initially I was thinking about adding this as a "precommit" check, to make sure the autogenerated files were submitted correctly, but I realized that the policy is actually not to send autogenerated files as part of the patch (thus making pre-commit check impracticable in such cases, unless we autogenerate those files after applying the patch) I understand you mean to run this as a post-commit bot, meaning we would continue to "accept" broken commits, but now automatically send a notification, asking for a prompt fix? We can probably implement that, indeed. Is that the general agreement? Thanks, Christophe > false-positives should be low (I thought zero but see > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/635358.html). > > Thanks for any ideas which can lead to a mostly automated process. > > Martin
