Skip to content

Fix broken gitignore exclude#2478

Merged
openshift-merge-bot[bot] merged 2 commits into
containers:mainfrom
Luap99:gitignore
Jul 16, 2025
Merged

Fix broken gitignore exclude#2478
openshift-merge-bot[bot] merged 2 commits into
containers:mainfrom
Luap99:gitignore

Conversation

@Luap99

@Luap99 Luap99 commented Jul 16, 2025 •
edited by sourcery-ai Bot
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

.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
@Luap99
.gitignore: do not ignore all build directories
a199e85 
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>
@Luap99
vendor: regenerate files
bc80b16 
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

sourcery-ai Bot commented Jul 16, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

@Luap99 Luap99 mentioned this pull request Jul 16, 2025
Merged
sourcery-ai[bot]
sourcery-ai Bot approved these changes Jul 16, 2025
View reviewed changes

@sourcery-ai sourcery-ai Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

openshift-ci Bot commented Jul 16, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

[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

mheon commented Jul 16, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

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

LGTM

mtrmac
mtrmac reviewed Jul 16, 2025
View reviewed changes

@mtrmac mtrmac left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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
@TomSweeneyRedHat
Bump c/storage to v1.59.0, c/image to v5.36.0
57e9e6d 
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 TomSweeneyRedHat mentioned this pull request Jul 16, 2025
Closed
TomSweeneyRedHat added a commit to TomSweeneyRedHat/common that referenced this pull request Jul 16, 2025
@TomSweeneyRedHat
Bump c/storage to v1.59.0, c/image to v5.36.0
4936759 
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
@TomSweeneyRedHat
Bump c/storage to v1.59.0, c/image to v5.36.0
7e00216 
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
@TomSweeneyRedHat
Bump c/storage to v1.59.0, c/image to v5.36.0
7aa32e5 
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
@TomSweeneyRedHat
Bump c/storage to v1.59.0, c/image to v5.36.0
5e7264f 
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

Reviewers

@mtrmac mtrmac mtrmac left review comments

+1 more reviewer

@sourcery-ai sourcery-ai[bot] sourcery-ai[bot] approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@mtrmac mtrmac

Labels

approved lgtm

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@Luap99 @mheon @mtrmac