Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

feat(appset): filtering repos by archived status #20736 #21505

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

feat(appset): filtering repos by archived status #20736 #21505

wants to merge 2 commits into from
+2,571 −889

Conversation

prune998
Copy link
Contributor

@prune998 prune998 commented Jan 15, 2025 •
edited
Loading

This PR adds a filter on repos to choose if archived repos are to be included in the scm generator.
For now this only includes github, gitlab and gitea.

Gitlab is a little different in that the API already exclude archived repos by default, so the option allows to include archived repos.

Closes [ISSUE https://github.com/https://github.com//issues/18531]

This is a clean version of #20736

Checklist:

  • Either (a) I've created an enhancement proposal and discussed it with the community, (b) this is a bug fix, or (c) this does not need to be in the release notes.
  • The title of the PR states what changed and the related issues number (used for the release note).
  • The title of the PR conforms to the Toolchain Guide
  • I've included "Closes [ISSUE #]" or "Fixes [ISSUE #]" in the description to automatically close the associated issue.
  • I've updated both the CLI and UI to expose my feature, or I plan to submit a second PR with them.
  • Does this PR require documentation updates?
  • I've updated documentation as required by this PR.
  • I have signed off all my commits as required by DCO
  • I have written unit and/or e2e tests for my change. PRs without these are unlikely to be merged.
  • My build is green (troubleshooting builds).
  • My new feature complies with the feature status guidelines.
  • I have added a brief description of why this PR is necessary and/or what this PR solves.
  • Optional. My organization is added to USERS.md.
  • Optional. For bug fixes, I've indicated what older releases this fix should be cherry-picked into (this may or may not happen depending on risk/complexity).

@prune998 prune998 requested review from a team as code owners January 15, 2025 20:26
@bunnyshell Bunnyshell
Copy link

bunnyshell bot commented Jan 15, 2025 •
edited
Loading

🔴 Preview Environment stopped on Bunnyshell

See: Environment Details | Pipeline Logs

Available commands (reply to this comment):

  • 🔵 /bns:start to start the environment
  • 🚀 /bns:deploy to redeploy the environment
  • ❌ /bns:delete to remove the environment

@prune998 prune998 force-pushed the prune/filtering-repos-by-archived-status branch from f735a50 to fa0fdd3 Compare January 16, 2025 17:31
@prune998
feat(appset): filtering repos by archived status argoproj#20736
f8b9123 
Signed-off-by: Prune <[email protected]>
missing returned values for github scm

Signed-off-by: Prune <[email protected]>

adding generated code

Signed-off-by: Prune <[email protected]>

correct rebase issues

correct test cases for gitlab
@prune998 prune998 force-pushed the prune/filtering-repos-by-archived-status branch from 606ee7b to f8b9123 Compare January 16, 2025 19:26
@prune998 prune998 mentioned this pull request Jan 16, 2025
Open
14 tasks
@prune998
Copy link
Contributor Author

@crenshaw-dev I think most tests are going through already.

There's going to be some documentation to update maybe ? Let me know if you can find time to review.
I would rate this feature as non critical...

@prune998 prune998 force-pushed the prune/filtering-repos-by-archived-status branch from 02d2d2d to 1599826 Compare January 16, 2025 20:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
1 participant
@prune998