bug#69466: Wrong colours for QA

bug#69466: Wrong colours for QA

[Andreas Enge]

Hello,

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).

Andreas

bug#69466: Wrong colours for QA

[Christopher Baines]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 755 bytes --]

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> writes:

> 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.

1: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix/qa-frontpage.git/tree/guix-qa-frontpage/issue.scm#n163

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 987 bytes --]

bug#69466: Wrong colours for QA

[Andreas Enge]

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.

Andreas

bug#69466: Wrong colours for QA

[Christopher Baines]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 667 bytes --]

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> writes:

> 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.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 987 bytes --]