Wrong colours for QA

  • Open
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
2 participants
  • Andreas Enge
  • Christopher Baines
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Andreas Enge
Severity
normal
A
A
Andreas Enge wrote on 29 Feb 11:49 +0100
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
ZeBhRBe3IEuXRXkp@jurong
Hello,

it looks like the dark green colour is wrongly chosen in QA,
for instance here:
The issue has been reviewed, but "Comparison unavailable
Yet to process revision".

I think dark green should only appear when the package is reviewed
AND builds correctly (so would be light green without reviewing).

Andreas
C
C
Christopher Baines wrote on 22 Apr 18:27 +0200
(name . Andreas Enge)(address . andreas@enge.fr)(address . 69466@debbugs.gnu.org)
87o7a11hwx.fsf@cbaines.net
Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> writes:

Toggle quote (9 lines)
> it looks like the dark green colour is wrongly chosen in QA,
> for instance here:
> https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/69441
> The issue has been reviewed, but "Comparison unavailable
> Yet to process revision".
>
> I think dark green should only appear when the package is reviewed
> AND builds correctly (so would be light green without reviewing).

When implementing this I chose to have the review trump any other status
since hopefully any failing builds will have been taken in to account by
the reviewer.

I think it's useful to highlight when there's a review regardless of the
other information that QA has.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=i/S7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A
A
Andreas Enge wrote on 29 Apr 15:42 +0200
(name . Christopher Baines)(address . mail@cbaines.net)(address . 69466@debbugs.gnu.org)
Zi-jtSsP1HDEk1el@jurong
Am Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 05:27:58PM +0100 schrieb Christopher Baines:
Toggle quote (4 lines)
> When implementing this I chose to have the review trump any other status
> since hopefully any failing builds will have been taken in to account by
> the reviewer.

My impression is that reviews happen often before the package has reached
the status of being built on QA.

Andreas
C
C
Christopher Baines wrote on 29 Apr 16:29 +0200
(name . Andreas Enge)(address . andreas@enge.fr)(address . 69466@debbugs.gnu.org)
87frv4z1h3.fsf@cbaines.net
Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> writes:

Toggle quote (8 lines)
> Am Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 05:27:58PM +0100 schrieb Christopher Baines:
>> When implementing this I chose to have the review trump any other status
>> since hopefully any failing builds will have been taken in to account by
>> the reviewer.
>
> My impression is that reviews happen often before the package has reached
> the status of being built on QA.

I think that's fine too, QA is meant to be helpful not limiting.

I do still take this in to account when merging, not pushing things to
master if I'd like to see more things build, either just for substitute
availability, or because I'm on the lookout for build failures.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAmYvrshfFIAAAAAALgAo
aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF
ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh
aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9XfTBg/+OnuTME437szYuOmtKNsvHqdnXWFFChvk
1FaCyDF7RzzJWqoaoAWF8YgyIpa9xF42tazm8a26t/omyvSLEQPndRQZDJCduPGO
AaGLvlZKAQpzv7PZCZpA6rZjkmlb7Va3z40xs4HlDmX4bvzFbbHtKG/7moffwXP4
P/7+aT8DnjINyZdK3e0pjjzLhkKCpHJDVGtGXrHQ1l03OSLGAiuW9U35EFrZ6GRi
gVm76E5qZsg0/6FMKWah81JyW/4S1fLiuaDEZr8V2l9CH8K4lAfz+5/yoJlpJdbd
/pmu51gYR0DMeGehpWgFw+73osgiNzNOcG7egnkWQFzEH8nNkRodap5+QwBFjLrW
abOGoV32UpUQiyBjo092uaKwiSAInVrCc9Q/do/vjOGkBSIbt+2KUPJRtUiXO+w7
rezlezfaGN57B2GpAZOqBfT9M8gfzxOtQWjdz+eIxeK7NVCJ76y9vAWhtnjKDsr3
uF8S5wI8+4KQrJvUB2cW1DBWVtSnpEcOKKRyL/zO+DfWwWVQPIZWCLxrcCEeDI1Z
9+Jm86UTYdw1FJehuV9d4SZPkeXCaGQYoSND/vJn5cm18R9gN6p819dCVWpgQbLc
0HeYbq0ufJa68dk/yXTFyvaP0NWnr18O8VKXYP5wKoBh8JhcIBhPxhMbT6J6i1MF
qDQRHNbe10w=
=gBbr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

?
Your comment

Commenting via the web interface is currently disabled.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 69466@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it
mumi current 69466
Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)
mumi am -- -s
Or, compose a reply to this issue
mumi compose
Or, send patches to this issue
mumi send-email *.patch