Hi, > regarding missing license headers: would it be an option to run the check as > part of the default build? +1
This problem happened to me as well. Locally, we need to build with the “rat” profile to check the license headers, but because it disables the tests, we are forced to run multiple builds. Making the check as part of the default build would prevent this kind of issues. Carlo From: Angela Schreiber <anch...@adobe.com.INVALID> Date: Wednesday, 16 March 2022 at 08:35 To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org <oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org> Subject: Re: OAK-9712: blob-cloud-azure instead of segment-azure? hi regarding missing license headers: would it be an option to run the check as part of the default build? i usually build oak multiple times before pushing any changes and having the license header check included would help me. wdyt? angela ________________________________ From: Miroslav Smiljanic <miros...@apache.org> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 6:41 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org <oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org> Subject: Re: OAK-9712: blob-cloud-azure instead of segment-azure? Hi, Recently I experienced a problem with another PR build, and it seemed caused by build infrastructure issues. This time, I thought the same is happening again, and before merging PR (that added new test cases and updated doc), run tests locally. I am sorry I have rushed with the PR approval that caused project build issues later on. Matt, your suggestion sounds reasonable. Regards, Miroslav On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 4:33 PM Marcel Reutegger <mreut...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi, > > On 08.03.22, 15:55, "Matt Ryan" <mattr...@apache.org> wrote: > > - Open issues, questions, concerns, etc. in tickets and PRs must be > > addressed satisfactorily before code is committed. > > I agree. To me it seems like changes for OAK-9712 were rushed in. > The PR also had failed checks for most of the modules, because > a license header was missing. I admit, a missing license header > is not a big deal. But it looks like for this PR the Jenkins test results > were simply ignored and impact could have been worse. > > Regards > Marcel >
