> It might be better to have some indicator that the analysis *did* run, > because otherwise, you can't tell if you should wait longer for the > result or whether your code is clean.
Originally, our bot *did* publish a comment when analysis didn't find any defects in a patch, but this was causing a lot of bugmail noise: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/TFfjCRdGz_E/uCQx4XHZCAAJ So we decided that it was better to publish comments only when *some* defects were found. However, we're now considering adding a custom Phabricator build status indicator to show when our analysis is running, or if it has succeeded or failed: > - Integrate more deeply with Phabricator, e.g. by reporting a build status for our analysis This would be a lighter / less chatty integration than publishing comments. Additionally, our analysis generally finishes in under 8 minutes, so if you haven't heard from the bot in a while it means your patch is probably fine: https://p.datadoghq.com/sb/NsBIKn-240d11775d25dce0ef2c47d4b7ce0ae0 Jan On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:10 PM Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 05:06:07PM +0200, Jan Keromnes wrote: > > Thanks all for the enthusiasm, we're also excited about what this can do > > for us. > > > > > When did this become active? > > > > Last year on MozReview, yesterday on Phabricator. > > > > > Can existing diff be forced to be scanned if they weren’t before? > > > > The easiest way to force a re-scan is to re-upload the patch (e.g. after > > rebasing it). > > > > Note that the bot doesn't publish anything if no defect was detected. A > > complete analysis generally takes a few minutes. > > It might be better to have some indicator that the analysis *did* run, > because otherwise, you can't tell if you should wait longer for the > result or whether your code is clean. > > Mike > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
