refactor(providers): constantize provider StatusOpt conclusion options by aThorp96 · Pull Request #2384 · tektoncd/pipelines-as-code

aThorp96 · 2026-01-09T21:25:01Z

📝 Description of the Change

The Conclusion field of StatusOpts has a discrete number of supported values. These being typed as strings has introduced bugs in the past and makes adding new values difficult. Defining the supported values as constant enums improves both the safety of the values and the ease of working with them.

👨🏻‍ Linked Jira

None

🔗 Linked GitHub Issue

Fixes #

🚀 Type of Change

🧪 Testing Strategy

🤖 AI Assistance

I have not used any AI assistance for this PR.
I have used AI assistance for this PR.

If you have used AI assistance, please provide the following details:

Which LLM was used?

Extent of AI Assistance:

Documentation and research only
Unit tests or E2E tests only
Code generation (parts of the code)
Full code generation (most of the PR)
PR description and comments
Commit message(s)

Important

If the majority of the code in this PR was generated by an AI, please add a Co-authored-by trailer to your commit message.
For example:

Co-authored-by: Gemini gemini@google.com
Co-authored-by: ChatGPT noreply@chatgpt.com
Co-authored-by: Claude noreply@anthropic.com
Co-authored-by: Cursor noreply@cursor.com
Co-authored-by: Copilot Copilot@users.noreply.github.com

**💡You can use the script ./hack/add-llm-coauthor.sh to automatically add
these co-author trailers to your commits.

✅ Submitter Checklist

gemini-code-assist · 2026-01-09T21:25:39Z

Summary of Changes

Hello @aThorp96, 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 significantly refactors the handling of status conclusions across the application's provider integrations. By introducing a dedicated status package and migrating from string literals to constant enums for StatusOpts conclusions, the change aims to improve the robustness and clarity of status reporting. This standardization will prevent common errors associated with string-based comparisons and make the system more adaptable to new status types.

Highlights

Introduction of status package: A new package pkg/provider/status has been created to centralize the definition of StatusOpts and Conclusion types, along with a set of constant Conclusion values.
Constantization of Status Conclusions: Hardcoded string literals for status conclusions (e.g., "success", "failure", "pending") have been replaced with strongly typed constants (e.g., status.ConclusionSuccess, status.ConclusionFailure) across the codebase.
Improved Type Safety and Maintainability: This refactoring enhances type safety by preventing errors from incorrect string inputs for status conclusions and simplifies future maintenance and extension of status types.
Removal of Redundant Constants: Old string constants for status conclusions within pkg/pipelineascode/pipelineascode.go have been removed, as they are now superseded by the new centralized constants.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

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 by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

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 pull request 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. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

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.

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. ↩

aThorp96 · 2026-01-09T21:28:08Z

pkg/provider/status/status.go

+	ConclusionSuccess   Conclusion = "success"
+)
+
+//nolint:revive


I opted (no pun intended) to keep the existing struct's name StatusOpts even though the linter warned about the name being status.StatusOpts but I have no qualms with renaming to status.Opts, status.UpdateOpts, or something.

gemini-code-assist

Code Review

This is a great refactoring that introduces constants for StatusOpts.Conclusion values, improving type safety and maintainability across the providers. The changes are well-applied throughout the codebase. I've found a few places where new conclusion constants are not fully handled in provider-specific implementations, leading to // TODO comments or empty switch cases. I've provided suggestions to complete the implementation for these cases. I also have a minor suggestion to improve code readability in one of the pointer conversions.

gemini-code-assist · 2026-01-09T21:28:32Z

pkg/provider/gitea/gitea.go

+	default:
 	}


The default case in this switch is empty. This means that several conclusion types (completed, skipped, cancelled) will be passed directly to gitea.StatusState, which may not be valid Gitea statuses. These should be explicitly mapped to valid Gitea statuses (e.g., pending, success, error, failure, warning).

For example:

ConclusionCompleted should probably map to gitea.StatusSuccess.

ConclusionSkipped could map to gitea.StatusWarning.

ConclusionCancelled could map to gitea.StatusFailure.

case providerstatus.ConclusionCompleted: state = gitea.StatusSuccess case providerstatus.ConclusionSkipped: state = gitea.StatusWarning case providerstatus.ConclusionCancelled: state = gitea.StatusFailure default: // This will handle success, failure, pending which are already valid gitea.StatusState }

gemini-code-assist · 2026-01-09T21:28:32Z

pkg/provider/github/status.go

+	default:
 	}


The default case in this switch is empty. This means that several conclusion types (completed, skipped, cancelled) will be passed directly to the GitHub API, which are not valid statuses. These should be explicitly mapped to valid GitHub statuses (error, failure, pending, success).

For example:

ConclusionCompleted and ConclusionSkipped could be mapped to ConclusionSuccess.

ConclusionCancelled could be mapped to ConclusionFailure.

Suggested change

default:

}

case providerstatus.ConclusionCompleted, providerstatus.ConclusionSkipped:

status.Conclusion = providerstatus.ConclusionSuccess

case providerstatus.ConclusionCancelled:

status.Conclusion = providerstatus.ConclusionFailure

default:

}

can you double check @aThorp96 this is the case? this seems relevant...

I think this comment may be correct, but there is no change in behavior in this PR. Can these be fixed in a followup PR?

gemini-code-assist · 2026-01-09T21:28:32Z

pkg/provider/bitbucketcloud/bitbucket.go

+	case status.ConclusionCancelled:
+		// TODO
 	}


The cancelled conclusion is not handled here. It should probably be mapped to the STOPPED state, similar to skipped and neutral.

Suggested change

case status.ConclusionCancelled:

// TODO

}

case status.ConclusionCancelled:

state = stateStopped

statusopts.Title = "🚫 Cancelled"

}

gemini-code-assist · 2026-01-09T21:28:32Z

pkg/provider/bitbucketdatacenter/bitbucketdatacenter.go

+			// TODO: Should this be scm.StateRunning?
+			state = scm.StatePending


The TODO comment questions whether scm.StateRunning should be used. Since the status title is "CI has started", scm.StateRunning seems more appropriate than scm.StatePending. go-scm defines StateRunning as "The build is running.".

Suggested change

// TODO: Should this be scm.StateRunning?

state = scm.StatePending

state = scm.StateRunning

gemini-code-assist · 2026-01-09T21:28:32Z

pkg/provider/bitbucketdatacenter/bitbucketdatacenter.go

+	case status.ConclusionCancelled:
+		// TODO
 	}


The cancelled conclusion is not handled. It should be mapped to scm.StateCanceled.

case status.ConclusionCancelled: state = scm.StateCanceled statusOpts.Title = "🚫 Cancelled" }

gemini-code-assist · 2026-01-09T21:28:32Z

pkg/provider/gitea/gitea.go

+	case providerstatus.ConclusionCancelled, providerstatus.ConclusionCompleted, providerstatus.ConclusionSkipped:
 	}


This new case for cancelled, completed, and skipped conclusions is empty. This means statusOpts.Title and statusOpts.Summary won't be set for these cases, which could lead to confusing or missing information in the status updates. These cases should be handled explicitly.

For example:

ConclusionCompleted could be treated like ConclusionSuccess.

ConclusionCancelled could be a Failure or Warning.

ConclusionSkipped could be a Warning.

case providerstatus.ConclusionCompleted: statusOpts.Title = "Completed" statusOpts.Summary = "has completed." case providerstatus.ConclusionCancelled: statusOpts.Title = "Cancelled" statusOpts.Summary = "has been cancelled." case providerstatus.ConclusionSkipped: statusOpts.Title = "Skipped" statusOpts.Summary = "has been skipped." }

pkg/provider/github/status.go

gemini-code-assist · 2026-01-09T21:28:32Z

pkg/provider/github/status.go

+	case providerstatus.ConclusionCompleted, providerstatus.ConclusionSkipped:
 	}


This new case for completed and skipped conclusions is empty. This means statusOpts.Title and statusOpts.Summary won't be set for these cases, which could lead to confusing or missing information in the status updates. These cases should be handled explicitly.

For example:

ConclusionCompleted could have a title "Completed".

ConclusionSkipped could have a title "Skipped".

Suggested change

case providerstatus.ConclusionCompleted, providerstatus.ConclusionSkipped:

}

case providerstatus.ConclusionCompleted:

statusOpts.Title = "Completed"

statusOpts.Summary = "has completed."

case providerstatus.ConclusionSkipped:

statusOpts.Title = "Skipped"

statusOpts.Summary = "has been skipped."

}

pkg/provider/status/status.go

pkg/provider/gitlab/gitlab.go

pkg/provider/status/status.go

pkg/provider/bitbucketcloud/bitbucket.go

pipelines-as-code · 2026-01-12T11:17:28Z

🔍 PR Lint Feedback

Note: This automated check helps ensure your PR follows our contribution guidelines.

⚠️ Items that need attention:

🎫 Jira reference

Add a Jira reference in the description using one of the following formats:

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SRVKP-<number>

If no SRVKP ticket exists yet, link a GitHub issue instead (e.g., Fixes #123).
Minor housekeeping PRs without Jira coverage can skip this after confirming with reviewers.

🤖 AI attribution

The following commits lack an explicit AI attribution footer:

dd7cfa8 refactor(providers): constantize provider StatusOpt conclusion options

If no AI assistance was used for a commit, you can ignore this warning.
Otherwise add an Assisted-by: or Co-authored-by: footer referencing the AI used.

ℹ️ Next Steps

Review and address the items above
Push new commits to update this PR
This comment will be automatically updated when issues are resolved

🔧 Admin Tools (click to expand)

Automated Issue/Ticket Creation:

/issue-create - Generate a GitHub issue from this PR content using AI
/jira-create - Create a SRVKP Jira ticket from this PR content using AI

⚠️ Important: Always review and edit generated content before finalizing tickets/issues.
The AI-generated content should be used as a starting point and may need adjustments.

These commands are available to maintainers and will post the generated content as PR comments for review.

_{🤖 This feedback was generated automatically by the PR CI system}

aThorp96 · 2026-01-12T16:56:58Z

Note on the Gemini feedback: most of the Gemini feedback is requesting I enumerate switch statements and/or have logic for some currently-noop cases (e.g. Gitea doesn't handle Cancelled, Completed, or Skipped).

A downside of using a pseudo-enum for these states is that the linter requires switch statements be exhaustive and also tells you to switch any if+elseif statements to switched. The upside though is these linting rules seem to be highlighting VCS feature-parity gaps. That being said, IMO resolving those gaps is out of scope of this PR. This PR should IMO have no change in behavior, just code organization and safety

theakshaypant

LGTM, I would still like to wait for the CI fix to run e2e on the PR before merging it.

chmouel · 2026-01-13T14:30:11Z

can you double check the default case if they are being passed directly to the provider status ? i am uncertain it's the case but i haven't dug down into the code

zakisk · 2026-02-18T06:43:44Z

@aThorp96 again there are many conflicts 🥲

The Conclusion field of StatusOpts has a discrete number of supported values. These being typed as strings has introduced bugs in the past and makes adding new values difficult. Defining the supported values as constant enums improves both the safety of the values and the ease of working with them.

theakshaypant · 2026-02-23T05:34:02Z

Only did a rebase. Will address the comments in a separate commit next

chmouel · 2026-02-23T16:46:18Z

Thank you @theakshaypant 🙏🏻

aThorp96 commented Jan 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Jan 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

aThorp96 requested review from chmouel and zakisk January 9, 2026 21:28

theakshaypant reviewed Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

pkg/provider/gitlab/gitlab.go Show resolved Hide resolved

pkg/provider/status/status.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pkg/provider/bitbucketcloud/bitbucket.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

zakisk force-pushed the no-start-status-description branch from ce689be to d2ef3de Compare January 12, 2026 11:17

pipelines-as-code bot added github providers refactoring labels Jan 12, 2026

aThorp96 force-pushed the no-start-status-description branch 2 times, most recently from 80ddccb to 8d2dff2 Compare January 12, 2026 16:47

theakshaypant reviewed Jan 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

aThorp96 force-pushed the no-start-status-description branch 2 times, most recently from c7a9a38 to c77cb57 Compare January 20, 2026 11:13

theakshaypant force-pushed the no-start-status-description branch from 1befc05 to dd7cfa8 Compare February 23, 2026 05:32

chmouel merged commit 41c6ace into tektoncd:main Feb 23, 2026
11 checks passed

		// TODO: Should this be scm.StateRunning?
		state = scm.StatePending

	// TODO: Should this be scm.StateRunning?
	state = scm.StatePending
	state = scm.StateRunning

		case providerstatus.ConclusionCancelled, providerstatus.ConclusionCompleted, providerstatus.ConclusionSkipped:
		}

		case providerstatus.ConclusionCompleted, providerstatus.ConclusionSkipped:
		}

-	case providerstatus.ConclusionCompleted, providerstatus.ConclusionSkipped:
-	}
+case providerstatus.ConclusionCompleted:
+		statusOpts.Title = "Completed"
+		statusOpts.Summary = "has <b>completed</b>."
+	case providerstatus.ConclusionSkipped:
+		statusOpts.Title = "Skipped"
+		statusOpts.Summary = "has been <b>skipped</b>."
+	}

Conversation

aThorp96 commented Jan 9, 2026

📝 Description of the Change

👨🏻‍ Linked Jira

🔗 Linked GitHub Issue

🚀 Type of Change

🧪 Testing Strategy

🤖 AI Assistance

✅ Submitter Checklist

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot commented Jan 9, 2026

Summary of Changes

Highlights

Footnotes

Uh oh!

aThorp96 Jan 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Jan 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Jan 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

chmouel Jan 13, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aThorp96 Jan 13, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Jan 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Jan 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Jan 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Jan 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Jan 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pipelines-as-code bot commented Jan 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🔍 PR Lint Feedback

⚠️ Items that need attention:

🎫 Jira reference

🤖 AI attribution

ℹ️ Next Steps

Uh oh!

aThorp96 commented Jan 12, 2026

Uh oh!

theakshaypant left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

chmouel commented Jan 13, 2026

Uh oh!

zakisk commented Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

theakshaypant commented Feb 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chmouel commented Feb 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

pipelines-as-code bot commented Jan 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading