-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 187
Version bump for new stream #1895
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
I missed that in eclipse-platform#1894
|
Warnings are coming from some previous change thus merging to move a step ahead at least. |
Just to understand this correctly: it's just because we have some flaky behavior of the analysis in SWT so that sometimes the used reference |
|
@HeikoKlare Comparison is done against latest master build ( eclipse.platform.swt/Jenkinsfile Line 349 in 632681f
Overtime this leads to gradual increase of warnings and decrease in code quality, unfortunately we had to go that path as using a baseline that marks any increase of warnings as failing builds led to people ignoring results even more. Long story short - there seems to be no way to make people care about that :( . |
|
@akurtakov Yes, I know that latest Still, I think we have a different "issue" here (related to the tooling) and there were no warnings introduced in the recent past: the reported warnings for SWT The latest build used for reference will always have 33 issues reported, as builds with more issues (like the most recent master build with 43 issues) will be marked as instable and not taken as reference. So if your PR is built unluckily built with 43 warnings (even though you did not introduce new ones and no recent PR did either), you will see the check failing. |
|
I have no explanation for such behavior. It would need separate tracking and investigation. |
|
The behavior has been there for quite a while, but it does not occur that often and did bother us that much that anyone cared. I justed wanted to make aware that such reported warnings may just be a CI glitch and do not necessarily point to an actual quality degradation. |


I missed that in
#1894