github-starred/gitea
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea.git synced 2026-07-15 20:09:18 -05:00
Code Issues 2.6k Packages Projects Releases 100 Wiki Activity

Incorrect aggregated status of commit statuses #11187

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-11-02 09:30:14 -06:00 by GiteaMirror · 5 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 09:30:14 -06:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @harryzcy on GitHub (Jul 9, 2023).

Description

The commit as part of PR is marked with green check, when some workflows is still running.

Gitea Version

v1.19.4

Can you reproduce the bug on the Gitea demo site?

No

Log Gist

No response

Screenshots

image

Git Version

No response

Operating System

No response

How are you running Gitea?

official docker image

Database

PostgreSQL

Originally created by @harryzcy on GitHub (Jul 9, 2023). ### Description The commit as part of PR is marked with green check, when some workflows is still running. ### Gitea Version v1.19.4 ### Can you reproduce the bug on the Gitea demo site? No ### Log Gist _No response_ ### Screenshots <img width="477" alt="image" src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/37034805/5ab0a16e-0ec0-4ce3-853c-db26103bca8e"> ### Git Version _No response_ ### Operating System _No response_ ### How are you running Gitea? official docker image ### Database PostgreSQL
GiteaMirror added the type/bug label 2025-11-02 09:30:14 -06:00
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 09:30:15 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@wolfogre commented on GitHub (Jul 10, 2023):

I don't think it's related to Actions, Actions create commit statuses, and it seems that the aggregated status is incorrect.

@wolfogre commented on GitHub (Jul 10, 2023): I don't think it's related to Actions, Actions create commit statuses, and it seems that the aggregated status is incorrect.
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 09:30:15 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@sebastian-sauer commented on GitHub (Jul 10, 2023):

What is the current "order" / priority for those states?
If the expected behaviour is clear i'm happy to write a test & fix for this.

@lunny you did the last implementation of this order - so maybe you got any thoughts on this?

I'd assume the following :

Order (always if one state is available first, then this should be the combined state)

[Pending, Running, Error, Failure, Warning, Success]

so if one is pending -> show pending
if none is pending but 1 is running -> show pending
and so on :)

As far as i understand this aligns with the github documentation (which is not very detailled ;))

Additionally, a combined state is returned. The state is one of:

- failure if any of the contexts report as error or failure
- pending if there are no statuses or a context is pending
- success if the latest status for all contexts is success

This would change the evaluation - please see results compared:

Method Old-result New-result
pending.NoBetterThan(pending) true true
pending.NoBetterThan(running) true true
pending.NoBetterThan(error) false true
pending.NoBetterThan(failure) false true
pending.NoBetterThan(warning) false true
pending.NoBetterThan(success) true true
running.NoBetterThan(pending) false false
running.NoBetterThan(running) true true
running.NoBetterThan(error) false true
running.NoBetterThan(failure) false true
running.NoBetterThan(warning) false true
running.NoBetterThan(success) true true
error.NoBetterThan(pending) true false
error.NoBetterThan(running) true false
error.NoBetterThan(error) true true
error.NoBetterThan(failure) true true
error.NoBetterThan(warning) true true
error.NoBetterThan(success) true true
failure.NoBetterThan(pending) true false
failure.NoBetterThan(running) true false
failure.NoBetterThan(error) false false
failure.NoBetterThan(failure) true true
failure.NoBetterThan(warning) true true
failure.NoBetterThan(success) true true
warning.NoBetterThan(pending) true false
warning.NoBetterThan(running) true false
warning.NoBetterThan(error) false false
warning.NoBetterThan(failure) false false
warning.NoBetterThan(warning) true true
warning.NoBetterThan(success) true true
success.NoBetterThan(pending) false false
success.NoBetterThan(running) true false
success.NoBetterThan(error) false false
success.NoBetterThan(failure) false false
success.NoBetterThan(warning) false false
success.NoBetterThan(success) true true
@sebastian-sauer commented on GitHub (Jul 10, 2023): What is the current "order" / priority for those states? If the expected behaviour is clear i'm happy to write a test & fix for this. @lunny you did the last implementation of this order - so maybe you got any thoughts on this? I'd assume the following : Order (always if one state is available first, then this should be the combined state) [Pending, Running, Error, Failure, Warning, Success] so if one is pending -> show pending if none is pending but 1 is running -> show pending and so on :) As far as i understand this aligns with the [github documentation](https://docs.github.com/en/rest/commits/statuses?apiVersion=2022-11-28#get-the-combined-status-for-a-specific-reference) (which is not very detailled ;)) ``` Additionally, a combined state is returned. The state is one of: - failure if any of the contexts report as error or failure - pending if there are no statuses or a context is pending - success if the latest status for all contexts is success ``` This would change the evaluation - please see results compared: | Method | Old-result | New-result | | -------- | -------- | -------- | | pending.NoBetterThan(pending) | true | true | | pending.NoBetterThan(running) | true | true | | pending.NoBetterThan(error) | false | true | | pending.NoBetterThan(failure) | false | true | | pending.NoBetterThan(warning) | false | true | | pending.NoBetterThan(success) | true | true | | running.NoBetterThan(pending) | false | false | | running.NoBetterThan(running) | true | true | | running.NoBetterThan(error) | false | true | | running.NoBetterThan(failure) | false | true | | running.NoBetterThan(warning) | false | true | | running.NoBetterThan(success) | true | true | | error.NoBetterThan(pending) | true | false | | error.NoBetterThan(running) | true | false | | error.NoBetterThan(error) | true | true | | error.NoBetterThan(failure) | true | true | | error.NoBetterThan(warning) | true | true | | error.NoBetterThan(success) | true | true | | failure.NoBetterThan(pending) | true | false | | failure.NoBetterThan(running) | true | false | | failure.NoBetterThan(error) | false | false | | failure.NoBetterThan(failure) | true | true | | failure.NoBetterThan(warning) | true | true | | failure.NoBetterThan(success) | true | true | | warning.NoBetterThan(pending) | true | false | | warning.NoBetterThan(running) | true | false | | warning.NoBetterThan(error) | false | false | | warning.NoBetterThan(failure) | false | false | | warning.NoBetterThan(warning) | true | true | | warning.NoBetterThan(success) | true | true | | success.NoBetterThan(pending) | false | false | | success.NoBetterThan(running) | true | false | | success.NoBetterThan(error) | false | false | | success.NoBetterThan(failure) | false | false | | success.NoBetterThan(warning) | false | false | | success.NoBetterThan(success) | true | true |
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 09:30:15 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@CaiCandong commented on GitHub (Jul 11, 2023):

491cc06ffe/modules/structs/commit_status.go (L26-L40)

The truth table for the above function is as follows ， CommitStatusSuccess <=CommitStatusRunning should be false?

NoBetterThan(<=) CommitStatusError CommitStatusFailure CommitStatusWarning CommitStatusPending CommitStatusRunning CommitStatusSuccess
CommitStatusError true true true true true true
CommitStatusFailure false true true true true true
CommitStatusWarning false false true true true true
CommitStatusPending false false false true true true
CommitStatusRunning false false false false true true
CommitStatusSuccess false false false false true true
@CaiCandong commented on GitHub (Jul 11, 2023): https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/491cc06ffe3491242ad9ff6227423d99e673d0c2/modules/structs/commit_status.go#L26-L40 The truth table for the above function is as follows ， `CommitStatusSuccess` <=`CommitStatusRunning` should be false? | NoBetterThan(<=) | CommitStatusError | CommitStatusFailure | CommitStatusWarning | CommitStatusPending | CommitStatusRunning | CommitStatusSuccess | |---------------------|-------------------|---------------------|---------------------|---------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | CommitStatusError | true | true | true | true | true | true | | CommitStatusFailure | false | true | true | true | true | true | | CommitStatusWarning | false | false | true | true | true | true | | CommitStatusPending | false | false | false | true | true | true | | CommitStatusRunning | false | false | false | false | true | true | | CommitStatusSuccess | false | false | false | false |true | true |
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 09:30:15 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@CaiCandong commented on GitHub (Jul 11, 2023):

  1. For this issue solution, I noticed that the priority in the source code is [Error, Failure, Warning, Pending,Running,Success], but there might be a little problem in the implementation, which leads to Success.NoBetterThan(Running) return true, we just need to fix this little problem to resolve the issue.

  2. Regarding the need to align with github, @sebastian-sauer you mentioned the github implementation:.

Additionally, a combined state is returned. The state is one of:

- failure if any of the contexts report as error or failure
- pending if there are no statuses or a context is pending
- success if the latest status for all contexts is success

But I noticed that there are only 4 statuses for github create-a-commit-status

state string Required
The state of the status.

Can be one of: error, failure, pending, success

The design of gitea is still somewhat different from github, so we can't fully align it with github.

  1. I don't quite understand why @sebastian-sauer's priority is [Pending, Running, Error, Failure, Warning, Success], according to github's documentation, I think github's priority should be [error,failure, Pending,Success], and either error or failure returns failure.This contradicts your suggestion of [Pending, Running, Error, Failure, Warning, Success], when both Running and Failure are present the , the combined state should be Failure, right? But depending on your priority, it will return Running.
@CaiCandong commented on GitHub (Jul 11, 2023): 1. For this issue solution, I noticed that the priority in the source code is [Error, Failure, Warning, Pending,Running,Success], but there might be a little problem in the implementation, which leads to `Success.NoBetterThan(Running) ` return `true`, we just need to fix this little problem to resolve the issue. 2. Regarding the need to align with github, @sebastian-sauer you mentioned the github implementation:. ``` Additionally, a combined state is returned. The state is one of: - failure if any of the contexts report as error or failure - pending if there are no statuses or a context is pending - success if the latest status for all contexts is success ``` But I noticed that there are only 4 statuses for github [create-a-commit-status](https://docs.github.com/en/rest/commits/statuses?apiVersion=2022-11-28#create-a-commit-status) ``` state string Required The state of the status. Can be one of: error, failure, pending, success ``` The design of gitea is still somewhat different from github, so we can't fully align it with github. 3. I don't quite understand why @sebastian-sauer's priority is `[Pending, Running, Error, Failure, Warning, Success]`, according to github's documentation, I think github's priority should be `[error,failure, Pending,Success]`, and either `error` or `failure` returns `failure`.This contradicts your suggestion of `[Pending, Running, Error, Failure, Warning, Success]`, when both `Running` and `Failure` are present the , the combined state should be `Failure`, right? But depending on your priority, it will return `Running`.
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 09:30:16 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@wolfogre commented on GitHub (Jul 11, 2023):

My idea is to remove running as a commit status. It was added because Gitea Actions has running, but it could be a mistake. I think pending is enough to express the waiting, running or blocked for Gitea Actions.

And warning may be also a mistake too, I have no idea when to use warning instead of failure/error.

@wolfogre commented on GitHub (Jul 11, 2023): My idea is to remove `running` as a commit status. It was added because Gitea Actions has `running`, but it could be a mistake. I think `pending` is enough to express the `waiting`, `running` or `blocked` for Gitea Actions. And `warning` may be also a mistake too, I have no idea when to use `warning` instead of `failure`/`error`.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
$20
$250
$50
$500
backport/done
💎 Bounty
docs-update-needed
good first issue
hacktoberfest
issue/bounty
issue/confirmed
issue/critical
issue/duplicate
issue/needs-feedback
issue/not-a-bug
issue/regression
issue/stale
issue/workaround
lgtm/need 2
modifies/api
modifies/translation
outdated/backport/v1.18
outdated/theme/markdown
outdated/theme/timetracker
performance/bigrepo
performance/cpu
performance/memory
performance/speed
pr/breaking
proposal/accepted
proposal/rejected
pr/wip
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 reviewed/wontfix
💰 Rewarded
skip-changelog
status/blocked
topic/accessibility
topic/api
topic/authentication
topic/build
topic/code-linting
topic/commit-signing
topic/content-rendering
topic/deployment
topic/distribution
topic/federation
topic/gitea-actions
topic/issues
topic/lfs
topic/mobile
topic/moderation
topic/packages
topic/pr
topic/projects
topic/repo
topic/repo-migration
topic/security
topic/theme
topic/ui
topic/ui-interaction
topic/ux
topic/webhooks
topic/wiki
type/bug
type/deprecation
type/docs
type/enhancement
type/feature
type/miscellaneous
type/proposal
type/question
type/refactoring
type/summary
type/testing
type/upstream
No Label type/bug
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/gitea#11187
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?