Update PR data Daily collection (2025-07-15 01:46 UTC) #123
Conversation
WalkthroughThis update modifies several JSON data files by advancing Jenkins CI build numbers and timestamps, removing or closing specific pull request entries (notably PRs 18 and 19), and correcting or updating metadata for JUnit5 migration and dependency bump pull requests. Additionally, the order of entries in a text file listing JUnit5 candidate PRs is reorganized. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant DataFiles
participant JenkinsCI
User->>DataFiles: Update PR metadata (timestamps, URLs, states)
DataFiles->>JenkinsCI: Reference new build numbers and statuses
User->>DataFiles: Remove or close specific PR entries (e.g., 18, 19)
User->>DataFiles: Correct and synchronize PR metadata (JUnit5, dependencies)
User->>DataFiles: Reorganize PR listing order (text file)
Possibly related PRs
Poem
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary of Changes
Hello @gounthar, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request is an automated daily update of various pull request-related data files. Its primary purpose is to keep the collected statistics and candidate lists current, ensuring that the information is up-to-date for tracking and analysis.
Highlights
- Automated Data Refresh: This pull request is an automated daily update of various PR-related data files, ensuring the collected statistics and candidate lists remain current.
- Failing PRs Data Update: The
failing_prs.jsonfile was updated to reflect the latest build status and links for an existing failing PR, and two older failing PR entries were removed. - JUnit5 Migration Candidates Refresh: The
junit5_candidates.jsonandjunit5_candidate_prs.txtfiles, which track PRs for JUnit5 migration, were refreshed. This involved reordering existing entries, adding new candidate PRs, and updating timestamps.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
| "url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/propelo-job-reporter-plugin/pull/28", | ||
| "repository": "jenkinsci/propelo-job-reporter-plugin", | ||
| "state": "OPEN", | ||
| "author": "strangelookingnerd", | ||
| "labels": null, | ||
| "body": "This PR aims to migrate all tests to JUnit5. Changes include:\n\nMigrate annotations and imports\nMigrate assertions\nRemove public visibility for test classes and methods\nMinor clean up\n\nI am well aware that this is a quite large changeset however I hope that there is still interest in this PR and it will be reviewed.\nIf there are any questions, please do not hesitate to ping me.\n\n Make sure you are requesting to pull a topic/feature/bugfix branch (right side) and not your master branch!\n Ensure that the pull request title represents the desired changelog entry\n Please describe what you did\n Link to relevant issues in GitHub\n Link to relevant pull requests, esp. upstream and downstream changes\n Ensure you have provided tests - that demonstrates feature works or fixes the issue", | ||
| "createdAt": "2025-05-06T12:49:05Z" | ||
| "createdAt": "2025-05-06T09:41:06Z" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The order of pull requests for propelo-job-reporter-plugin and buildtriggerbadge-plugin seems to have been swapped. This creates a noisy diff. Consider implementing a stable sorting order, such as by repository name and creation date, to ensure consistency across runs.
| "url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/createjobadvanced-plugin/pull/19", | ||
| "repository": "jenkinsci/createjobadvanced-plugin", | ||
| "state": "MERGED", | ||
| "author": "strangelookingnerd", | ||
| "labels": null, | ||
| "body": "This PR aims to migrate all tests to JUnit5. Changes include:\n\nMigrate annotations and imports\nMigrate assertions\nRemove public visibility for test classes and methods\nMinor clean up\n\nI am well aware that this is a quite large changeset however I hope that there is still interest in this PR and it will be reviewed.\nIf there are any questions, please do not hesitate to ping me.\nSubmitter checklist\n\n Make sure you are opening from a topic/feature/bugfix branch (right side) and not your main branch!\n Ensure that the pull request title represents the desired changelog entry\n Please describe what you did\n Link to relevant issues in GitHub or Jira\n Link to relevant pull requests, esp. upstream and downstream changes\n Ensure you have provided tests that demonstrate the feature works or the issue is fixed", | ||
| "createdAt": "2025-06-03T11:05:12Z" | ||
| "createdAt": "2025-06-03T11:17:30Z" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The order of pull requests for createjobadvanced-plugin and clover-plugin seems to have been swapped. This creates a noisy diff. Consider implementing a stable sorting order, such as by repository name and creation date, to ensure consistency across runs.
| "url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/file-operations-plugin/pull/170", | ||
| "repository": "jenkinsci/file-operations-plugin", | ||
| "state": "MERGED", | ||
| "author": "strangelookingnerd", | ||
| "labels": [ | ||
| "test" | ||
| "tests" | ||
| ], | ||
| "body": "This PR aims to migrate all tests to JUnit5. Changes include:\n\nMigrate annotations and imports\nMigrate assertions\nRemove public visibility for test classes and methods\nMinor clean up\n\nI am well aware that this is a quite large changeset however I hope that there is still interest in this PR and it will be reviewed.\nIf there are any questions, please do not hesitate to ping me.\nSubmitter checklist\n\n Make sure you are opening from a topic/feature/bugfix branch (right side) and not your main branch!\n Ensure that the pull request title represents the desired changelog entry\n Please describe what you did\n Link to relevant issues in GitHub or Jira\n Link to relevant pull requests, esp. upstream and downstream changes\n Ensure you have provided tests that demonstrate the feature works or the issue is fixed", | ||
| "createdAt": "2025-06-02T14:01:18Z" | ||
| "createdAt": "2025-06-02T07:41:20Z" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The labels array for file-operations-plugin contains tests while the labels array for run-condition-plugin contains test. This is inconsistent. Please ensure that the labels are consistent across runs.
| "url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/javadoc-plugin/pull/186", | ||
| "repository": "jenkinsci/javadoc-plugin", | ||
| "state": "MERGED", | ||
| "author": "strangelookingnerd", | ||
| "labels": [ | ||
| "tests" | ||
| "test" | ||
| ], | ||
| "body": "This PR aims to migrate all tests to JUnit5. Changes include:\n\nMigrate annotations and imports\nMigrate assertions\nRemove public visibility for test classes and methods\nMinor clean up\n\nI am well aware that this is a quite large changeset however I hope that there is still interest in this PR and it will be reviewed.\nIf there are any questions, please do not hesitate to ping me.\n\n Make sure you are requesting to pull a topic/feature/bugfix branch (right side) and not your master branch!\n Ensure that the pull request title represents the desired changelog entry\n Please describe what you did\n Link to relevant issues in GitHub\n Link to relevant pull requests, esp. upstream and downstream changes\n Ensure you have provided tests - that demonstrates feature works or fixes the issue", | ||
| "createdAt": "2025-03-21T12:11:24Z" | ||
| "createdAt": "2025-03-19T15:13:51Z" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The labels array for sqlserver-api-plugin contains tests while the labels array for javadoc-plugin contains test. This is inconsistent. Please ensure that the labels are consistent across runs.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
data/junit5/junit5_candidates.json (1)
2602-2608: Samelabelsnull/array inconsistency as noted above
See earlier comment – not repeating the diff here.
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
data/consolidated/open_prs.json (1)
1518-1530: Add an explicitbuildNumberfield instead of inferring it from the Jenkins URLThe only place the new build number (
9) is stored is insidetargetUrl/detailsUrl.
Any downstream analytics that need the build identifier must regex-parse the URL, which is brittle if Jenkins ever changes its URL structure. Persisting an explicit numeric field (e.g."buildNumber": 9) next tostartedAt/completedAtwould:• eliminate string-parsing logic in consumers,
• make schema evolution independent of Jenkins, and
• keep the data self-describing (useful if the job is ever mirrored to another CI provider).This is a non-breaking, additive change to the JSON schema.
junit5_candidate_prs.txt (1)
1-3: Consider deterministic sorting to minimize churnDaily re-ordering of entries generates large, noisy diffs that add little value and make reviews harder. A stable, deterministic sort order (e.g. by repository name then PR number) would shrink future diffs to only real additions/removals.
data/junit5/junit5_candidates.json (2)
115-132: Prefer empty array overnullforlabelsto keep the JSON schema invariantElsewhere in the file
labelsis sometimes an array ([]or["tests"]) and sometimesnull.
A single type is easier to consume programmatically.- "labels": null, + "labels": [], ... - "labels": null, + "labels": [],
916-934: Label key name drift ("test"vs"tests")You use both singular and plural label values (
"test"and"tests").
Pick one to avoid downstream filtering surprises.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
data/consolidated/all_prs.json(3 hunks)data/consolidated/failing_prs.json(1 hunks)data/consolidated/open_prs.json(1 hunks)data/junit5/junit5_candidates.json(16 hunks)junit5_candidate_prs.txt(12 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧠 Learnings (5)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: gounthar
PR: gounthar/alpha-omega-stats#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-07T16:15:13.008Z
Learning: For the jenkins-pr-collector tool, all PRs should be logged, not just those with specific keywords like "odernizer" or "recipe" in the body text.
Learnt from: gounthar
PR: gounthar/alpha-omega-stats#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-07T16:15:13.008Z
Learning: The jenkins-pr-collector should log all PRs found, not just the ones with specific strings like "odernizer" in the body.
data/consolidated/open_prs.json (2)
undefined
<retrieved_learning>
Learnt from: gounthar
PR: gounthar/alpha-omega-stats#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-07T16:15:13.008Z
Learning: For the jenkins-pr-collector tool, all PRs should be logged, not just those with specific keywords like "odernizer" or "recipe" in the body text.
</retrieved_learning>
<retrieved_learning>
Learnt from: gounthar
PR: gounthar/alpha-omega-stats#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-07T16:15:13.008Z
Learning: The jenkins-pr-collector should log all PRs found, not just the ones with specific strings like "odernizer" in the body.
</retrieved_learning>
data/consolidated/failing_prs.json (2)
undefined
<retrieved_learning>
Learnt from: gounthar
PR: gounthar/alpha-omega-stats#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-07T16:15:13.008Z
Learning: For the jenkins-pr-collector tool, all PRs should be logged, not just those with specific keywords like "odernizer" or "recipe" in the body text.
</retrieved_learning>
<retrieved_learning>
Learnt from: gounthar
PR: gounthar/alpha-omega-stats#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-07T16:15:13.008Z
Learning: The jenkins-pr-collector should log all PRs found, not just the ones with specific strings like "odernizer" in the body.
</retrieved_learning>
junit5_candidate_prs.txt (2)
Learnt from: gounthar
PR: gounthar/alpha-omega-stats#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-07T16:15:13.008Z
Learning: The jenkins-pr-collector should log all PRs found, not just the ones with specific strings like "odernizer" in the body.
Learnt from: gounthar
PR: gounthar/alpha-omega-stats#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-07T16:15:13.008Z
Learning: For the jenkins-pr-collector tool, all PRs should be logged, not just those with specific keywords like "odernizer" or "recipe" in the body text.
data/junit5/junit5_candidates.json (2)
undefined
<retrieved_learning>
Learnt from: gounthar
PR: gounthar/alpha-omega-stats#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-07T16:15:13.008Z
Learning: The jenkins-pr-collector should log all PRs found, not just the ones with specific strings like "odernizer" in the body.
</retrieved_learning>
<retrieved_learning>
Learnt from: gounthar
PR: gounthar/alpha-omega-stats#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-07T16:15:13.008Z
Learning: For the jenkins-pr-collector tool, all PRs should be logged, not just those with specific keywords like "odernizer" or "recipe" in the body text.
</retrieved_learning>
🔇 Additional comments (30)
data/consolidated/failing_prs.json (1)
687-703: Build-number bump applied consistently across JSON datasets
I ran a repository-wide scan of all.jsonsnapshots for the old/aqua-security-scanner-plugin/job/PR-73/8/URL and found no matches. The bump to/PR-73/9/is applied consistently across:
- data/consolidated/failing_prs.json
- data/consolidated/open_prs.json
- data/consolidated/all_prs.json
junit5_candidate_prs.txt (16)
40-42: List entry updated — data change only, no review concerns.
61-63: List entry updated — data change only, no review concerns.
67-69: List entry updated — data change only, no review concerns.
160-162: List entry updated — data change only, no review concerns.
259-261: List entry updated — data change only, no review concerns.
274-276: List entry updated — data change only, no review concerns.
586-588: List entry updated — data change only, no review concerns.
598-600: List entry updated — data change only, no review concerns.
604-606: List entry updated — data change only, no review concerns.
622-624: List entry updated — data change only, no review concerns.
661-663: List entry updated — data change only, no review concerns.
676-678: List entry updated — data change only, no review concerns.
700-702: List entry updated — data change only, no review concerns.
709-710: List entry updated — data change only, no review concerns.
892-894: List entry updated — data change only, no review concerns.
928-930: List entry updated — data change only, no review concerns.data/junit5/junit5_candidates.json (13)
193-201: Metadata looks correct after the repository/URL swap
No further action required.
213-221: AWS-Global-Configuration entry LGTM
Fields are internally consistent.
517-533: Timestamper entry LGTM
Nothing out of place.
862-878: Create-Job-Advanced entry LGTM
State/URL/repository alignment looks good.
2126-2144: Javadoc plugin record LGTM
2171-2180: Lockable-Resources plugin record LGTM
2196-2216: Docker-Java & Mailer entries LGTM
No structural issues detected.
2266-2286: JUnit-Attachments / Agent-Maintenance entries LGTM
2414-2432: Email-Ext / XShell entries LGTM
Consider the earlier remark on label plurality.
2468-2488: GitLab-Kubernetes / Implied-Labels entries LGTM
3294-3310: Two Modernizer-generated PRs LGTM
Data consistent; author change captured correctly.
3431-3452: Dependabot bump entries LGTM
No structural concerns.
2566-2574: PR #146 State Confirmed as Closed
The GitHub API returns"state": "closed"for pull request 146, matching the"state": "CLOSED"entry in data/junit5/junit5_candidates.json. No changes are needed.
| "state": "CLOSED", | ||
| "createdAt": "2025-03-28T18:21:59Z", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Same issue: add closedAt for PR #19.
Mirroring the previous comment, please include the closedAt property so downstream consumers do not infer closure time from updatedAt.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In data/consolidated/all_prs.json around lines 3156 to 3157, the pull request
#19 is missing the `closedAt` property. Add the `closedAt` field with the
appropriate timestamp to the PR #19 object to ensure downstream consumers can
accurately determine the closure time instead of relying on `updatedAt`.
| "state": "CLOSED", | ||
| "createdAt": "2025-03-27T20:30:10Z", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Missing a closedAt field for PR #18.
All other PR objects that are closed usually expose an explicit closedAt timestamp to distinguish between “updated” and “closed”. Consider adding it for consistency:
"updatedAt": "2025-03-29T00:26:28Z",
+ "closedAt": "2025-03-29T00:26:28Z",Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In data/consolidated/all_prs.json around lines 3123 to 3124, the PR object for
PR #18 is missing the closedAt field. Add a closedAt timestamp to this PR object
to maintain consistency with other closed PRs, ensuring it clearly indicates
when the PR was closed.
| "startedAt": "2025-07-14T10:30:22Z", | ||
| "state": "ERROR", | ||
| "targetUrl": "https://ci.jenkins.io/job/Plugins/job/aqua-security-scanner-plugin/job/PR-73/8/display/redirect" | ||
| "targetUrl": "https://ci.jenkins.io/job/Plugins/job/aqua-security-scanner-plugin/job/PR-73/9/display/redirect" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "__typename": "CheckRun", | ||
| "completedAt": "2025-07-02T18:47:43Z", | ||
| "completedAt": "2025-07-14T10:30:22Z", | ||
| "conclusion": "FAILURE", | ||
| "detailsUrl": "https://ci.jenkins.io/job/Plugins/job/aqua-security-scanner-plugin/job/PR-73/8/display/redirect", | ||
| "detailsUrl": "https://ci.jenkins.io/job/Plugins/job/aqua-security-scanner-plugin/job/PR-73/9/display/redirect", | ||
| "name": "Jenkins", | ||
| "startedAt": "2025-07-02T18:47:21Z", | ||
| "startedAt": "2025-07-14T10:30:08Z", | ||
| "status": "COMPLETED", | ||
| "workflowName": "" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Verification agent
🧩 Analysis chain
Please verify that all build-8 URLs are gone.
The URLs and timestamps now point to build 9, which is correct for the latest Jenkins run. Make sure no lingering references to build 8 remain in other JSON blobs (e.g., failing_prs.json, open_prs.json, *_prs.json.gz).
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Find any CI URLs that still reference build 8
rg 'job/PR-[0-9]+/8/' data | headLength of output: 1489
Fix lingering build-8 URLs in JSON blobs
We still have CI URLs pointing to build 8 in the consolidated JSON data. Please update all of these to build 9 so they match the latest Jenkins run.
• Files with build 8 references:
- data/consolidated/failing_prs.json
- data/consolidated/open_prs.json
Example diff for each occurrence:
- "targetUrl": "https://ci.jenkins.io/job/Plugins/job/Matrix-sorter-plugin/job/PR-4/8/display/redirect"
+ "targetUrl": "https://ci.jenkins.io/job/Plugins/job/Matrix-sorter-plugin/job/PR-4/9/display/redirect"
- "detailsUrl": "https://ci.jenkins.io/job/Plugins/job/appray-plugin/job/PR-6/8/display/redirect"
+ "detailsUrl": "https://ci.jenkins.io/job/Plugins/job/appray-plugin/job/PR-6/9/display/redirect"After updating, re-run:
rg 'job/PR-[0-9]+/8/' datato confirm no build 8 URLs remain.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In data/consolidated/all_prs.json around lines 1709 to 1721, there are lingering
URLs referencing build 8 in the CI job paths. Update all occurrences of
'job/PR-[0-9]+/8/' to 'job/PR-[0-9]+/9/' to reflect the latest Jenkins build.
After making these replacements, run the provided ripgrep command to verify no
build 8 URLs remain in the data directory.
This PR contains automatically updated PR statistics data. Generated by GitHub Actions.
Summary by CodeRabbit