On 4/9/26 17:27, Claudio Bantaloukas wrote:
On 08/04/2026 14:52, Ben Boeckel wrote:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2026 at 14:04:18 +0100, Richard Earnshaw (foss) wrote:
I suspect the best solution would be if we could re-implement the
Linaro bot as a runner. But there are security implications that
would need to be investigate for that, since the runner would then be
managed by the forge (sent jobs), but would be in a separate
administrative/security domain.
Hmm…I don't think that should be necessary. This is the API I'm thinking
of:
https://forge.sourceware.org/api/swagger#/repository/
repoCreateStatus
/repos/{owner}/{repo}/statuses/{sha}
It should render near any native CI results as well.
Hi Ben,
thank you for pointing this out. I completely missed this feature when
looking at the API. (/facepalm)
Indeed this gives us options:
- some checks could be entirely hosted by external entities, using
hardware and scripts that they control and they can simply send a status
on the commit stating their process works with the build on that commit.
- Ideally the majority of these checks would run on containers whose
definitions are made available under contrib/ci-containers and the
process can be started with a single command under contrib/ci-scripts or
just a yaml in .forgejo/workflows as that would allow all developers to
replicate the run locally and do something about it.
- some checks could post a status on each commit (like the check that
changelogs are correct and the formatting adheres to the guidelines) and
the majority would run against the tip of the pull request
It would be great if the linaro CI could post statuses rather than
messages for:
linaroci / arm / build
linaroci / arm / check
linaroci / aarch64 / build
linaroci / aarch64 / check
and perhaps write a full message only when a failure is detected.
I'm convinced it can be updated to do that, I'll check with them.
Thanks,
--Ben
