OCPCLOUD-3254: Update api-review to do comprehensive test coverage analysis#2574
OCPCLOUD-3254: Update api-review to do comprehensive test coverage analysis#2574mdbooth wants to merge 1 commit intoopenshift:masterfrom
Conversation
|
Pipeline controller notification For optional jobs, comment |
|
Hello @mdbooth! Some important instructions when contributing to openshift/api: |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
size/XXL
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
@mdbooth: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
/retitle OCPCLOUD-3254: Update api-review to do comprehensive test coverage analysis |
openshift-ci
bot
changed the title
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-reference
|
@mdbooth: This pull request references OCPCLOUD-3254 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.21.0" version, but no target version was set. DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
3 participants
The most significant aspect of this change is the addition of
AGENTS-validations.md, which codifies current guidance on writing validations
for OpenShift APIs in a single document. This is as useful for meatbags as it
is for robots, although it might be reformatted for human consumption.
The output from the command, at least when execute by claude, is unfortunately
quite inconsistent. It is normally good, although consecutive runs might
produce different sets of good output. You certainly cannot rely on the output
to be complete.
It is also inconsistent as to whether it applies instructions. e.g. It
sometimes heeds the instruction not to require test coverage for MaxLength
validations, other times not.
This change also refactors the script in api-review.md to improve UX. Providing
multiple scripts requires the user to authorise multiple script executions, as
well as complicating the script itself.