Skip to content
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

Include filtered packages in status pages #750

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 7, 2020
Merged

Include filtered packages in status pages #750

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 7, 2020

Conversation

cottsay
Copy link
Member

@cottsay cottsay commented Mar 6, 2020

Previously, packages which were explicitly excluded from the release builds by means of white/black-listing in the release build configuration were completely excluded from the status page. Downstream dependencies of those packages are, however, included.

This doesn't align with the Jenkins jobs, where jobs are created for both explicitly and implicitly excluded packages, but are disabled.

This change leverages the already present "intentionally missing" state on the status page to reflect that the package is part of the distribution index, but isn't expected to be present in the build results. It also exposes packages which should have been missing from the build results but are present anyway.

This change doesn't handle the implicitly excluded packages, but sets a precedent for how they could be displayed in a subsequent change.

Previously, packages which were explicitly excluded from the release
builds by means of white/black-listing in the release build
configuration were completely excluded from the status page. Downstream
dependencies of those packages are, however, included.

This doesn't align with the Jenkins jobs, where jobs are created for
both explicitly and implicitly excluded packages, but are disabled.

This change leverages the already present "intentionally missing" state
on the status page to reflect that the package is part of the
distribution index, but isn't expected to be present in the build
results. It also exposes packages which should have been missing from
the build results but are present anyway.

This change doesn't handle the implicitly excluded packages, but sets a
precedent for how they could be displayed in a subsequent change.
@cottsay cottsay self-assigned this Mar 6, 2020
@cottsay cottsay requested a review from dirk-thomas March 6, 2020 22:04
@dirk-thomas
Copy link
Member

With the current change can the newly included rows be queried when selecting GREY in the search box?

@cottsay
Copy link
Member Author

cottsay commented Mar 6, 2020

With the current change can the newly included rows be queried when selecting GREY in the search box?

Yes

@cottsay cottsay merged commit 7175f92 into ros-infrastructure:master Mar 7, 2020
@cottsay cottsay deleted the ignored_pkgs branch March 7, 2020 00:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants