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

OCPBUGS-33487: Fix tsconfig so that VSCode can autocomplete imports correctly #13833

Closed

Conversation

TheRealJon
Copy link
Member

This is a nit that has bothered me for a while. Hopefully it improves the developer experience in our repo.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from kyoto and rhamilto May 9, 2024 20:04
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label May 9, 2024
@TheRealJon TheRealJon changed the title Fix tsconfig so that VSCode can autocomplete imports correctly OCPBUGS-33487 : Fix tsconfig so that VSCode can autocomplete imports correctly May 9, 2024
@TheRealJon TheRealJon changed the title OCPBUGS-33487 : Fix tsconfig so that VSCode can autocomplete imports correctly OCPBUGS-33487: Fix tsconfig so that VSCode can autocomplete imports correctly May 9, 2024
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added jira/severity-low Referenced Jira bug's severity is low for the branch this PR is targeting. jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels May 9, 2024
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@TheRealJon: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-33487, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

This is a nit that has bothered me for a while. Hopefully it improves the developer experience in our repo.

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.

@TheRealJon
Copy link
Member Author

/jira refresh

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@TheRealJon: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-33487, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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.

@TheRealJon
Copy link
Member Author

/jira refresh

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. and removed jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels May 9, 2024
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@TheRealJon: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-33487, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target version (4.16.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.16.0)
  • bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @yapei

In response to this:

/jira refresh

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.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested a review from yapei May 9, 2024 20:13
@rhamilto
Copy link
Member

Huzzah!

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 10, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented May 10, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rhamilto, TheRealJon

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD f8b1dd4 and 2 for PR HEAD 2133b1a in total

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 305254e and 1 for PR HEAD 2133b1a in total

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD ae115a9 and 0 for PR HEAD 2133b1a in total

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented May 13, 2024

@TheRealJon: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/frontend 2133b1a link true /test frontend

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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 kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

/hold

Revision 2133b1a was retested 3 times: holding

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 13, 2024
@jhadvig
Copy link
Member

jhadvig commented May 13, 2024

Looks like the change is is surfacing quite a lot of es-lint errors

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/jira refresh

The requirements for Jira bugs have changed (Jira issues linked to PRs on main branch need to target different OCP), recalculating validity.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-33487, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target version (4.16.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.16.0)
  • bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @yapei

In response to this:

/jira refresh

The requirements for Jira bugs have changed (Jira issues linked to PRs on main branch need to target different OCP), recalculating validity.

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.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/jira refresh

The requirements for Jira bugs have changed (Jira issues linked to PRs on main branch need to target different OCP), recalculating validity.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. and removed jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels May 17, 2024
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@openshift-bot: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-33487, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target either version "4.17." or "openshift-4.17.", but it targets "4.16.0" instead

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

/jira refresh

The requirements for Jira bugs have changed (Jira issues linked to PRs on main branch need to target different OCP), recalculating validity.

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.

@TheRealJon
Copy link
Member Author

/hold

Looking into alternative fixes as this may introduce unneccessary complexity to our build.

@TheRealJon
Copy link
Member Author

I'm closing this as it introduces webpack issues that would need to be addressed separately. This change surfaces many import cycle issues that are currently ignored.

@TheRealJon TheRealJon closed this May 29, 2024
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@TheRealJon: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-33487. The bug has been updated to no longer refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. All external bug links have been closed. The bug has been moved to the NEW state.

In response to this:

This is a nit that has bothered me for a while. Hopefully it improves the developer experience in our repo.

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. jira/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. jira/severity-low Referenced Jira bug's severity is low for the branch this PR is targeting. jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants