From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp26.services.sfr.fr (smtp26.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.207]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.8697.1675158773022209216 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 01:52:53 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=fail reason="no key for verify" header.i=@polynum.com header.s=202006 header.b=kR+ZsywW; spf=pass (domain: sfr.fr, ip: 93.17.128.207, mailfrom: thierry.laronde@sfr.fr) X-mail-filterd: {"version":"1.6.0","queueID":"4P5gMl1sfyz1LQL1r","contextId": "608dd417-bbaf-4117-8d39-ebcc31754b1c"} Received: from cauchy.polynum.local (20.204.0.93.rev.sfr.net [93.0.204.20]) by msfrf2628.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4P5gMl1sfyz1LQL1r for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:52:51 +0100 (CET) X-mail-filterd: {"version":"1.6.0","queueID":"4P5gMl0lTWz1LQL1j","contextId": "959bf09c-601b-457e-b537-5bba38520cec"} X-sfr-mailing: LEGIT X-sfr-spamrating: 40 X-sfr-spam: not-spam DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=polynum.com; s=202006; t=1675158771; h=Date:From:To:Subject; bh=2j3GgKD/ItOwTsIO07kSMGc720qNPsux8m22 nZowceA=; b=kR+ZsywWdKwQkm57ZnJzf2/QQoicwf9S8j++yciIw+afIM0/gUqL8tR3dQAW3Jf3 FJgwfHEi2sM/wOAsN+mWTIhexJTIuhdHLz3axLx6KxSlG30Kj6aPgGWUDtrlRbM5W6/WqP2H0pXf Fsw9ffqO3A5x8tj507lnrrOdcMBr4mdYt4Gyk9WCApzl8ynuJcgL2J3/croxdNJ6nnMjdTNnetvr ieLFKQjG2kbJv1k4TjuZ5RGGNxh++UHASL6FjkZnmGDKe/2fOA2RHS8hG9AJNSET3toYkdqulvXH t24WGuKBRz94y0ObvqCifgevyD+Zias/T+dUkFeK+7936lp20g== Received: from cauchy.polynum.local (20.204.0.93.rev.sfr.net [93.0.204.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: thierry.laronde@sfr.fr) by msfrf2628.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTPSA id 4P5gMl0lTWz1LQL1j for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:52:50 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: sfr.fr; auth=pass (LOGIN) smtp.auth=thierry.laronde@sfr.fr Received: from cauchy.polynum.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cauchy.polynum.local (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 30V9qoa4003547 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:52:50 +0100 (CET) Received: (from tlaronde@localhost) by cauchy.polynum.local (8.15.2/8.14.9/Submit) id 30V9qnBL003545 for devel@edk2.groups.io; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:52:49 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: cauchy.polynum.local: tlaronde set sender to thierry.laronde@sfr.fr using -f Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:52:49 +0100 From: "tlaronde@polynum.com" To: devel@edk2.groups.io Subject: CI passed yesterday; failing today only for PatchCheck Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline As requested, yesterday, for a trivial correction in BaseTools, removing useless libuuid dependency in GenFv/, I made a Pull Request and triggered a CI check test. All went fine. Today, looking if the patches have been reviewed and merged, I saw that since the master has changed, it required a merge. I did it and this triggered once more a CI check and this time, there is one failure: the PatchCheck (required) while everything builds without ado. So some questions: 1) When a pull request with a CI check test has been made and passed successfully, should one simply leave it as is---even if the head moves---waiting for reviewer approval and merge? 2) Is it known that this procedure (merging and re-trigerring) leads to a failure of PatchCheck for whatever reason? 3) In my case, the source modification should have impacted only Unix like GCC builds: the modification of the GNUmakefile; the removal of inclusions that dependend on __FreeBSD__ and __GNUC__ that is only GCC related compilations. Is there a way to limit the CI compilation to a subset (in this case GCC builds)? Because it seems to me a waste of computer time for such a limited modification... -- Thierry Laronde http://www.kergis.com/ http://kertex.kergis.com/ Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C