Re: Re : new service: orig-check -- Debian Upstream Tarball Checker
Hi William,
On 06/01/26 at 09:40 +0100, William Desportes wrote:
> Hi Lucas,
>
> Thanks for the UI improvement on mobile devices, the summary table is a bit too large but that's okay now.
>
> Could you add a search to the table results that summarize codes. So I can see all 2xx codes at once.
I think that one way to do that would be to rely on datatables to list
all valid values in the column, and provide a way to select/deselect
specific values. Added to To-Do.
> Also, the package search input would benefit from supporting % tokens to match package names.
> Or just adjust the query from strict equals to match anything that starts with the user input: $q%
Similarly, we could probably leverage datables for that.
> Do you think a re-try button could be added like there is in other debian services?
>
> https://orig-check.debian.net/orig-check/result/c2b2a9f8b88011503afd702efadbe98b1542f162f0b25257b7730825bb199611
>
> This one failed because QA failed to connect to upstream.
> Do you think it would be worth my time to contribute some code to detect such failed results so they are automatically re tried?
Currently, retries are implemented as follows:
- there's an 'obsolete' field in the results table that mark results
that should be retry if there's not already a more recent result
- there's code that mark some failures obsolete after 7 days:
https://salsa.debian.org/lucas/debaudit/-/blob/main/debaudit/cli.py?ref_type=heads#L547
But:
- there's no interface to request a specific retry (which would
translate to mark the result as obsolete, so that it's retried at the
next hourly run). Gitlab-based auth for that would be nice indeed. I
need to understand how that would work.
- I special-case some uscan warnings to mark failures as 'HTTP error'
but I missed the case above (it is unusual because it failed when
downloading the archive, not when reading the webpage)
> Also, I am quite sure I can make some uscan version not found find the version they need. But would you be open to such tricks? A new code is probably needed.
>
> "Found after uscan modification." something like that.
I think that it would be better to improve uscan directly (in the
devscripts package) instead. The checkers run inside a container with
devscripts from testing, so it's easy to update to a newer uscan.
Thanks for all the feedback. Patches welcomed as well of course (the
instructions to setup a development environment could be improved too,
so feel really free to ask).
Lucas
Reply to: