-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34
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
Many duplicate IPLab issues lead to lots of output annoying/unnecessary changes in license check output #350
Comments
Note that even more annoying is the following: -maven/mavencentral/org.tukaani/xz/1.9, LicenseRef-Public-Domain, approved, CQ23498
+maven/mavencentral/org.tukaani/xz/1.9, None, restricted, #15225 As the new one IPLab issue is not even approved yet. See also the discussion at https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/emo-team/iplab/-/issues/15225. |
You are correct that these new issues should not have been created. I'll investigate that. In the meantime, I've turned on a feature that will identify the duplicates and ignore them. |
For the behaviour that we're seeing, the |
Finally back in the office, so I've looked at the bogus issues created by the The tickets created by the https://github.com/eclipse-set/set/actions/runs/9512789698/job/26221525620#step:8:675
Dash then attempted to request reviews for a lot of items, but luckily stopped after 100. Related Dash code is: https://github.com/eclipse/dash-licenses/blob/1.1.0/core/src/main/java/org/eclipse/dash/licenses/foundation/EclipseFoundationSupport.java#L59 So for some reason:
Why that happened is not clear to me though. It's also no longer reproducable. |
Thanks for this. Several bogus issues were opened within a short time span. I'm fairly certain that it is the result of mishandling a failure. The failure may be in the API. We're still investigating. |
I've tried everything that I can think of with the Dash License Tool itself and the API that it calls. In all of the failure cases that I've managed to test, the tool has consistently just failed. We could, perhaps, fail more gracefully, but it's failed. I'm confident that the Dash License Tool itself is behaving correctly. So now, I'm looking at the data. I reviewed the output of a build before and a build after the one that you highlighted. One thing that I noted was that the problematic build has more than 500 additional dependencies. I don't quite see how this could have resulted in the duplication. I did notice that in both the before and after builds, every call to the "Eclipse Foundation" returned at least some information. In the problematic build, the last two calls to the API found nothing.
When trying to find license information for a dependency, the API considers two versions that differ only by service release (per Semantic Versioning) to be equivalent. The version that was approved by IPLab 9708 was version 5.10.0; the bogus issue was for version 5.10.2. The API should have identified the existing 5.10.0 version when asked about the 5.10.2 version, so this isn't the cause the problem. Note that the Dash License Tool will open an IPLab issue for a dependency if there is not already an open IPLab issue for that dependency. In this case, the original issue was closed. So this is, at least, expected behaviour. That is... the tool should not have flagged version 5.10.2, but when it did, it was entirely consistent that it opened an issue. My best guess at this point is that there was some kind of database issue and that -- for some period of time -- some of the data was absent or inaccessible. Every query of 500 items to "Eclipse Foundation" is discrete, so it's possible that something changed between calls. I'll continue my investigation there. |
We're getting in ESCET all kinds of changes in IPLab issue numbers in the check output. See https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/escet/escet/-/issues/870. Here is an example:
Somehow https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/emo-team/iplab/-/issues/9708 and https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/emo-team/iplab/-/issues/15250 are for the same artifact. I'm not sure why. Did they not report via the tool, but manually? If so, could we educate them not to make duplicate entries?
In any regard, I think the duplicates should be closed as duplicates, rather than judged again. And the duplicates should then not be used by the license check tool. That way, the output of the check doesn't change unnecessarily, requiring us to update the DEPENDENCIES file in our repo again and again, without good reason.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: