dy happen for every PR, this seems like an easy
> decision.
>
>
> From: Robert Houghton
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 14:20
> To: dev@geode.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Adding LTGM as gating PR checks
>
> Short answer would be to
: Thursday, December 16, 2021 14:20
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: 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
@geode.apache.org
Subject: 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
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
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
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
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
