Update PR data Daily collection (2025-07-23 01:46 UTC) #134
Conversation
WalkthroughThis update refreshes metadata in several data files, including check run timestamps and URLs, and reorganizes pull request entries related to JUnit5 migration in Jenkins plugins. No code logic or public entity declarations are altered; all changes are limited to data corrections, entry swaps, and comment toggling in metadata files. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant DataUpdater
participant MetadataFiles
DataUpdater->>MetadataFiles: Update check run timestamps and URLs
DataUpdater->>MetadataFiles: Swap and reorganize JUnit5 migration PR entries
DataUpdater->>MetadataFiles: Add new dependency update PR entries
Estimated code review effort1 (~6 minutes) 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 serves as an automated daily refresh of the JUnit5 migration pull request dataset. It ensures that the stored PR statistics, including their current status, details, and relevant dependency updates, are up-to-date across both the structured JSON data and the plain text listing, reflecting the latest activity in the ecosystem.
Highlights
- Automated Data Update: This pull request automatically updates the daily collection of JUnit5 migration pull request data.
- Data Synchronization: It synchronizes detailed PR information in
data/junit5/junit5_candidates.jsonwith a simplified list injunit5_candidate_prs.txt. - PR Metadata Refresh: Various pull request entries have been reordered, and their metadata such as creation timestamps, body content, and labels have been refreshed to reflect the latest state.
- Dependency Updates Tracking: New Dependabot-generated pull requests, specifically those bumping JUnit Jupiter engine versions, have been added, and the status of some existing PRs has been updated (e.g., from open to merged or closed).
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 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 or fill out our survey 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. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request contains automated updates to PR statistics. The primary issue identified is the lack of a stable sort order for the PRs in both data/junit5/junit5_candidates.json and junit5_candidate_prs.txt. This results in noisy diffs with many reordered items, making it difficult to review the meaningful changes (new PRs, state changes). I've added comments to both files suggesting that the data generation process should include a sorting step to improve maintainability and reviewability of these automated updates.
| { | ||
| "title": "Migrate tests to JUnit5", | ||
| "url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/wiz-scanner-plugin/pull/10", | ||
| "repository": "jenkinsci/wiz-scanner-plugin", | ||
| "url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/support-core-plugin/pull/632", | ||
| "repository": "jenkinsci/support-core-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": "2025-04-10T13:19:40Z" | ||
| "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\nThere are two exceptions where a migration was not possible as the tests rely on Rule implementations that have not (yet) been migrated to JUnit5:\n\nSupportAutomatedBundleConfigurationSystemPropertiesTest using RealJenkinsRule\nSlaveLaunchLogsTest using InboundAgentRule\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": "2025-02-21T08:47:54Z" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "title": "Migrate tests to JUnit5", | ||
| "url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/support-core-plugin/pull/632", | ||
| "repository": "jenkinsci/support-core-plugin", | ||
| "url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/wiz-scanner-plugin/pull/10", | ||
| "repository": "jenkinsci/wiz-scanner-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\nThere are two exceptions where a migration was not possible as the tests rely on Rule implementations that have not (yet) been migrated to JUnit5:\n\nSupportAutomatedBundleConfigurationSystemPropertiesTest using RealJenkinsRule\nSlaveLaunchLogsTest using InboundAgentRule\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": "2025-02-21T08:47:54Z" | ||
| "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": "2025-04-10T13:19:40Z" | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The list of pull requests in this JSON file appears to be unsorted, leading to frequent reordering in automated updates. This creates noisy diffs that make it difficult to identify meaningful changes, such as new PRs or state updates.
To improve maintainability and clarity of changes, I recommend sorting the list of PRs. A stable sorting order, for example by repository and then by url or createdAt, would make the diffs much cleaner and focused on actual data changes.
While the script generating this file is not part of this PR, this is a suggestion for future improvements to the data collection process.
| # jenkinsci/support-core-plugin - Migrate tests to JUnit5 (OPEN) | ||
| https://github.com/jenkinsci/support-core-plugin/pull/632 | ||
|
|
||
| # jenkinsci/wiz-scanner-plugin - Migrate tests to JUnit5 (OPEN) | ||
| https://github.com/jenkinsci/wiz-scanner-plugin/pull/10 | ||
|
|
||
| # jenkinsci/aws-global-configuration-plugin - Migrate tests to JUnit5 (OPEN) | ||
| https://github.com/jenkinsci/aws-global-configuration-plugin/pull/104 | ||
|
|
||
| # jenkinsci/signpath-plugin - Migrate tests to JUnit5 (OPEN) | ||
| https://github.com/jenkinsci/signpath-plugin/pull/41 | ||
|
|
||
| # jenkinsci/tuleap-oauth-plugin - Migrate tests to JUnit5 (OPEN) | ||
| https://github.com/jenkinsci/tuleap-oauth-plugin/pull/499 | ||
|
|
||
| # jenkinsci/plain-credentials-plugin - Migrate tests to JUnit5 (OPEN) | ||
| https://github.com/jenkinsci/plain-credentials-plugin/pull/84 | ||
|
|
||
| # jenkinsci/tuleap-oauth-plugin - Migrate tests to JUnit5 (OPEN) | ||
| https://github.com/jenkinsci/tuleap-oauth-plugin/pull/499 | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Similar to junit5_candidates.json, the entries in this file are not sorted, which causes reordering in each automated update. This makes it hard to review the changes.
For better maintainability, please consider sorting the entries in this file. A good approach would be to sort them alphabetically by repository name and then by pull request number. This would ensure a stable order and make the diffs much cleaner.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
junit5_candidate_prs.txt (1)
322-324: Duplicate/redundant listing for job-config-history
This repository already has an OPEN entry at lines 13-15 (PR #381).
Now a second MERGED entry (PR #364) appears here. Having both without a clear grouping or comment makes the file harder to scan.Consider either
- grouping multiple PRs for the same repo together (OPEN → MERGED → CLOSED order), or
- keeping only the latest relevant status.
This will reduce noise and prevent false positives when the file is parsed programmatically.
data/junit5/junit5_candidates.json (1)
3251-3274: Consider trimming repeated Dependabot release-notes bodiesDependabot PRs embed full upstream changelogs, inflating this JSON by ~30 KB per entry and pushing the file well beyond 4 MB.
This slows down Git diffs and any runtime that loads the whole dataset into memory.Idea: Store only essential metadata (title, url, repository, createdAt, state) and fetch extended release notes on demand, or move verbose fields to a separate, gzip-compressed artefact.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
data/consolidated/all_prs.json(1 hunks)data/consolidated/open_prs.json(1 hunks)data/junit5/junit5_candidates.json(15 hunks)junit5_candidate_prs.txt(13 hunks)
🧠 Learnings (3)
📓 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.
junit5_candidate_prs.txt (1)
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/junit5/junit5_candidates.json (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.
🧰 Additional context used
🧠 Learnings (3)
📓 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.
junit5_candidate_prs.txt (1)
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/junit5/junit5_candidates.json (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.
🔇 Additional comments (15)
data/consolidated/all_prs.json (2)
1576-1584: Updated timestamps & URLs look consistent
startedAtprecedescompletedAtand the newdetailsUrlpoints to the same run / job id block, so nothing suspicious here.
1596-1603:workflowNameis empty – verify schema expectationsThe third check-run entry has
"workflowName": ""If downstream consumers assume a non-empty string (e.g., for grouping or display), this could break dashboards or metrics aggregation. Please confirm the schema allows an empty value; otherwise set it explicitly:
- "workflowName": "" + "workflowName": "Jenkins Security Scan"junit5_candidate_prs.txt (11)
82-84: Entry looks good – no action required
New candidate added; URL and status are valid.
94-96: Entry looks good – no action required
112-114: Entry looks good – no action required
130-132: Entry looks good – no action required
151-153: Entry looks good – no action required
190-192: Entry looks good – no action required
412-414: Entry looks good – no action required
553-555: Entry looks good – no action required
559-561: Entry looks good – no action required
616-618: Entry looks good – no action required
880-885: Entry looks good – no action requireddata/junit5/junit5_candidates.json (2)
363-372: Confirm that non-plugin repositories are expected in this dataset
jenkins-test-harnessis a library, not a classic Jenkins plugin.
Down-stream tooling that assumes every entry maps to a plugin repository may break (e.g., when calculating update-centers or plugin statistics). Double-check that consumers support such entries or add a field that differentiates libraries from plugins.
255-262: Risk of invalid JSON due to raw new-line characters inbodystringThe multi-paragraph
bodyvalue contains literal line-breaks (\n\n) that are rendered here as real new-lines rather than escaped\n.
If those breaks are written literally in the file, the whole document ceases to be valid JSON and any consumer using a strict parser will fail.Run a quick check before merging:
#!/bin/bash # Validate the JSON file is syntactically correct jq empty data/junit5/junit5_candidates.jsonIf the command exits with a non-zero status, make sure every line-break inside a JSON string is escaped (
\\n).⛔ Skipped due to 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.
| "completedAt": "2025-07-22T08:07:13Z", | ||
| "conclusion": "SUCCESS", | ||
| "detailsUrl": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/appscan-plugin/runs/44423962575", | ||
| "detailsUrl": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/appscan-plugin/runs/46453443532", | ||
| "name": "Jenkins Security Scan", | ||
| "startedAt": "2025-06-19T14:12:12Z", | ||
| "startedAt": "2025-07-22T08:07:11Z", | ||
| "status": "COMPLETED", | ||
| "workflowName": "" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Verification agent
🧩 Analysis chain
workflowName unexpectedly blank – confirm & correct if needed
The third CheckRun object sets
"workflowName": ""while the corresponding name is "Jenkins Security Scan". All other runs in this file (and in prior snapshots) contain a non-empty workflowName, and downstream tools may rely on that field for grouping/metrics. Please verify that the empty value is intentional; if not, restore the expected string to maintain consistency.
- "workflowName": ""
+ "workflowName": "Jenkins Security Scan"🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# List all CheckRuns whose `workflowName` is blank – expect *zero* results.
jq -r '
.. | objects
| select(has("workflowName"))
| select(.workflowName == "")
| .name + " @ " + (.startedAt // "n/a")
' data/consolidated/open_prs.jsonLength of output: 45370
Widespread blank workflowName values detected – restore proper names across all entries
Our jq query returned dozens of CheckRun records in data/consolidated/open_prs.json where "workflowName": "", including (but not limited to):
- Jenkins @ various timestamps
- Jenkins Security Scan @ various timestamps
- CPD, CheckStyle, Code Coverage, ESLint, Java Compiler, JavaDoc, Maven, Open Tasks Scanner, PMD, SpotBugs, Tests / linux-/ Build, Tests / windows-/ Build, etc.
This indicates that the generator producing open_prs.json is no longer populating the workflowName field for any runs. Downstream tooling relies on this field for grouping and metrics. Please:
- Update the script or schema that constructs
open_prs.jsonto emit the correctworkflowNamefor every CheckRun (e.g."Jenkins Security Scan"instead of""). - Regenerate
data/consolidated/open_prs.jsonso that no entries have an emptyworkflowName. - Verify with a repeat of:
that it returns zero results.
jq '..|objects|select(has("workflowName"))|select(.workflowName=="")' data/consolidated/open_prs.json
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In data/consolidated/open_prs.json around lines 1406 to 1412, the workflowName
field is blank for many CheckRun entries, which breaks downstream grouping and
metrics. To fix this, update the script or process that generates open_prs.json
to correctly assign the appropriate workflowName string for each CheckRun, such
as "Jenkins Security Scan" or other relevant names instead of empty strings.
After updating, regenerate the open_prs.json file and verify no entries have an
empty workflowName by rerunning the provided jq query to ensure it returns zero
results.
This PR contains automatically updated PR statistics data. Generated by GitHub Actions.
Summary by CodeRabbit