KUBESAW-129: Makefile target to check compatibility of local version with other repos

[fbm3307]

This second part of dependency check

There is a makefile target that validates compatibility of the local version in other repositories that rely on them

Similar-Related PR in API - codeready-toolchain/api#437

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 78.54%. Comparing base (6a52cb3) to head (c990dbc).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #417   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   78.54%   78.54%           
=======================================
  Files          49       49           
  Lines        2023     2023           
=======================================
  Hits         1589     1589           
  Misses        376      376           
  Partials       58       58           

[mfrancisc]

Looks good! I've tried it and it seems to be working now 👍

I was wondering if we should place this script in toolchain-cicd and download it here and in api at runtime, since the api pr contains similar/same code if I'm not wrong.

[ranakan19]

Looks good overall, left a few comments.
Does it delete the tmp folder after running the command? if not, can we consider adding it?

[fbm3307]

Looks good overall, left a few comments. Does it delete the tmp folder after running the command? if not, can we consider adding it?

it is automatically removed/deleted once the system restarts.. i did consider adding a delete command.. but that becomes a bit risky, incase that folder is not found .. and hence wanted to avoid it and use this..

[fbm3307]

I was wondering if we should place this script in toolchain-cicd and download it here and in api at runtime, since the api pr contains similar/same code if I'm not wrong.

The code is almost same, the difference is in the replace command and api has one more repo toolchain common to run the verify on .. but thought about keeping them in their respective repos for now

[mfrancisc]

The code is almost same, the difference is in the replace command and api has one more repo toolchain common to run the verify on .. but thought about keeping them in their respective repos for now

Ok makes sense for now to keep them both in their respective repos, and we can see how they evolve later on. Thanks 👍

[mfrancisc]

The code looks good and works fine on my machine 👍

I have a couple of questions:

• should we place the script inside some folder , maybe create a scripts folder or a subfolder in make/scripts/verify-replace.sh if it's simpler to execute from there.

• what is the plan for adding this check to the GH CI, will that be done in follow up PRs ?

[fbm3307]

• should we place the script inside some folder , maybe create a scripts folder or a subfolder in make/scripts/verify-replace.sh if it's simpler to execute from there.*

That can be done.

• what is the plan for adding this check to the GH CI, will that be done in follow up PRs ? *

this same script should work when called from github actions.. i intend to test this for CI and add this to the CI for each new PR

[ranakan19]

Thank you for addressing my comments, looks good to me

[mfrancisc]

this same script should work when called from github actions.. i intend to test this for CI and add this to the CI for each new PR

thanks for the clarification. Thus you are planning to update the GH CI job in this PR.

[fbm3307]

thanks for the clarification. Thus you are planning to update the GH CI job in this PR.

I was thinking to take that as a separate PR.

[mfrancisc]

Looks good 👍

Thanks for addressing my comments and answering my questions 🙏

[MatousJobanek]

Looks good, a few comments

[MatousJobanek]

we should exit with a non-zero value if something failed, right?

[fbm3307]

not sure if we require the non zero exit here ?,
here we are just displaying the error repo names, and error list is already being checked if its empty or not , so my understanding was we dont require exit here.?
Probably i am missing something here 🤔

[MatousJobanek]

if one of the verification failed, then we want the whole makefile target to return non-zero value (in other words let it fail as well)

[fbm3307]

updated it

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[MatousJobanek]

Nice 👍