Re: [DISCUSS] Adding LTGM as gating PR checks

+1 to adding this. Given it has a low false-positive rate, only checks on code actually changed in the PR and runs quickly compared to some of our other steps that already happen for every PR, this seems like an easy decision. From: Robert Houghton Sent:

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding LTGM as gating PR checks

Short answer would be to work with the rest of the community to get the check to pass, fix the LGTM configuration, something like that. Otherwise, the Concourse CI has the ability to set PR context messages. -Robert From: Owen Nichols Date: Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 10:40 AM To:

Errored: apache/geode-examples#655 (rel/v1.13.6 - b760ba6)

Build Update for apache/geode-examples - Build: #655 Status: Errored Duration: 1 min and 5 secs Commit: b760ba6 (rel/v1.13.6) Author: Owen Nichols Message: Bumping version to 1.13.6 View the changeset:

Errored: apache/geode-examples#657 (rel/v1.14.2 - bb8a717)

Build Update for apache/geode-examples - Build: #657 Status: Errored Duration: 48 secs Commit: bb8a717 (rel/v1.14.2) Author: Owen Nichols Message: Bumping version to 1.14.2 View the changeset: https://github.com/apache/geode-examples/compare/rel/v1.14.2 View

Errored: apache/geode-examples#659 (master - 7c15c4a)

Build Update for apache/geode-examples - Build: #659 Status: Errored Duration: 51 secs Commit: 7c15c4a (master) Author: Owen Nichols Message: Replacing master with contents of rel/v1.14.2 View the changeset:

Re: [VOTE] - Apache Geode Kafka Connector 1.1.0

This is related to the earlier discussion about the kafka connector. This code was already linked from the confluent hub, but I want to make sure we're in compliance with the apache release policy. To create this release, I took the source code and binaries Naba mentioned and compared them

[VOTE] - Apache Geode Kafka Connector 1.1.0

Hello Geode Dev Community, This is a release candidate for Apache Geode Kafka Connector version 1.1.0. This contains a bump to log4j 2.16. Please do a review and give your feedback, including the checks you performed. Voting deadline: 3PM PST Monday, December 20 2021. Please note that we are

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding LTGM as gating PR checks

Requiring LGTM looks good to me. It does not seem to have a high rate of false-positives like some other linters, but if we are making it gating, what would the process look like to override a false-positive? On 12/16/21, 10:37 AM, "Anthony Baker" wrote: Thanks Robert, I think this is

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding LTGM as gating PR checks

Thanks Robert, I think this is important. I think this is a good first step. In future I think we should consider adding a CI job to ensure that pre-existing security errors are addressed. Perhaps GitHub code scanning is worth investigating since they have acquired the LGTM product. Anthony

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding LTGM as gating PR checks

Excuse me. I meant to link the PR that would enable this behavior: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/7197 -Robert Houghton From: Robert Houghton Date: Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 10:08 AM To: geode Subject: [DISCUSS] Adding LTGM as gating PR checks We have had LGTM tests enabled on

[DISCUSS] Adding LTGM as gating PR checks

We have had LGTM tests enabled on Apache Geode PRs for quite some time, and have done a great job of trending those warnings and errors to in the right direction. I would like to make the change to our GitHub to make those changes blocking for all new PRs, given their reliability and