Skip to content

Conversation

@Luap99
Copy link
Member

@Luap99 Luap99 commented Jul 16, 2025

.gitignore: do not ignore all build directories

This matches all directories not just the top level one we wanted to
ignore, however we no loner use or put anything into /build so we can
just remove it instead.

vendor: regenerate files

Now that build is no longer incorrectly excluded it gets added. The fact
that this did not cause a compile failure was just because gingko is
used directly by the tests and not compiled from these sources.

Summary by Sourcery

Fix .gitignore to stop excluding build directories and regenerate vendor files accordingly

Bug Fixes:

  • Remove the build directory exclusion from .gitignore to prevent unintended ignores

Chores:

  • Regenerate vendor files to include the previously excluded build_command.go

Luap99 added 2 commits July 16, 2025 16:19
This matches all directories not just the top level one we wanted to
ignore, however we no loner use or put anything into /build so we can
just remove it instead.

Signed-off-by: Paul Holzinger <pholzing@redhat.com>
Now that build is no longer incorrectly excluded it gets added. The fact
that this did not cause a compile failure was just because gingko is
used directly by the tests and not compiled from these sources.

Signed-off-by: Paul Holzinger <pholzing@redhat.com>
@sourcery-ai
Copy link

sourcery-ai bot commented Jul 16, 2025

Reviewer's Guide

This PR corrects an overly broad .gitignore rule by removing the top‐level “build” exclusion and regenerates vendor dependencies so the newly included files (previously ignored) are added.

File-Level Changes

Change Details Files
Remove incorrect build directory ignore
  • Delete top‐level /build rule from .gitignore
.gitignore
Regenerate vendor to include newly unignored build files
  • Add ginkgo build_command.go under vendor
  • Refresh vendor directory contents
vendor/github.com/onsi/ginkgo/v2/ginkgo/build/build_command.go

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

  • Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
  • Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
  • Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
    issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
    review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
  • Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
    request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
    @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
  • Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
    the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
    want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
    (re-)generate the summary at any time.
  • Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
    request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
  • Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
    pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
    addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
  • Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
    request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
    want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
    @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

  • Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
    summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
  • Change the review language.
  • Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
  • Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

Copy link

@sourcery-ai sourcery-ai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hey @Luap99 - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!


Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 16, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Luap99, sourcery-ai[bot]

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

The pull request process is described here

Details 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

@mheon
Copy link
Member

mheon commented Jul 16, 2025

Ouch - easy to forget how Gitignore semantics are not always a match for what we want to do.

LGTM

Copy link
Contributor

@mtrmac mtrmac left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Jul 16, 2025
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 4f0f579 into containers:main Jul 16, 2025
12 of 14 checks passed
@Luap99 Luap99 deleted the gitignore branch July 16, 2025 14:48
TomSweeneyRedHat added a commit to TomSweeneyRedHat/common that referenced this pull request Jul 16, 2025
Possible replacement for containers#2476.  I'm not sure if I messed
something up when trying to merge in containers#2478 there, so thought I'd create
this PR to see if I messed something up there when doing the
merge/vendor.

Signed-off-by: tomsweeneyredhat <tsweeney@redhat.com>
TomSweeneyRedHat added a commit to TomSweeneyRedHat/common that referenced this pull request Jul 16, 2025
Possible replacement for containers#2476.  I'm not sure if I messed
something up when trying to merge in containers#2478 there, so thought I'd create
this PR to see if I messed something up there when doing the
merge/vendor.

Signed-off-by: tomsweeneyredhat <tsweeney@redhat.com>
TomSweeneyRedHat added a commit to TomSweeneyRedHat/common that referenced this pull request Jul 16, 2025
Possible replacement for containers#2476.  I'm not sure if I messed
something up when trying to merge in containers#2478 there, so thought I'd create
this PR to see if I messed something up there when doing the
merge/vendor.

Signed-off-by: tomsweeneyredhat <tsweeney@redhat.com>
TomSweeneyRedHat added a commit to TomSweeneyRedHat/common that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2025
Possible replacement for containers#2476.  I'm not sure if I messed
something up when trying to merge in containers#2478 there, so thought I'd create
this PR to see if I messed something up there when doing the
merge/vendor.

Signed-off-by: tomsweeneyredhat <tsweeney@redhat.com>
TomSweeneyRedHat added a commit to TomSweeneyRedHat/common that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2025
Possible replacement for containers#2476.  I'm not sure if I messed
something up when trying to merge in containers#2478 there, so thought I'd create
this PR to see if I messed something up there when doing the
merge/vendor.

Signed-off-by: tomsweeneyredhat <tsweeney@redhat.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants