On 11/6/19 2:40 PM, Eric Ball wrote:
All: I'm going to abandon the previously-linked patch request, and break it out into separate commits by project.
Robert: I've updated the Sonarcloud user permissions to match SonarQube, where all registered users can administer issues. As for the history import, it is not supported. We will have to leave the history behind.
A couple of notes about this:
1) Registered users are going to be users that are logging into SonarCloud using a GitHub account that is associated with the OpenDaylight GitHub organization. We presently have no quick and easy way of figuring out what those identities are so we'll have to do it on a case by case basis right now.
2) We're pushing for this change for a few of reasons.
a) This gives the project a fully up to date version Sonar and it will stay up to date since this is being maintained by SonarSource itself.
b) It reduces costs to the projects (we're pushing for this across the board everywhere) as it removes a server and a database from the support equation. Since we're being pushed hard by the different boards to reduce costs where possible this is a low hanging fruit type of change.
Yes y'all will lose the historical data, there isn't much we can do about that in this case since there is no ability to import data from SonarQube into SonarCloud.
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 3:24 PM Robert Varga <nite@... <mailto:nite@...>> wrote:
On 06/11/2019 23:01, Eric Ball wrote:
> You can view the OpenDaylight Sonarcloud page
> here: https://sonarcloud.io/organizations/opendaylight/projects
> Currently, the only projects showing results are those that have
> passed on the sandbox. Once the change is merged, all projects
> results after their next successful run.
> You may notice that while quantitative numbers like code coverage and
> duplication haven't changed, the number of bugs/vulnerabilities/code
> smells may have changed significantly (most likely an increase).
> due to Sonarcloud using much more up-to-date Quality Profiles
> SonarQube instance, so this should be considered an improvement in
> results (even though I understand that it can be a pain to
> a backlog of issues where there were few or none before). These
> can be customized, so if anyone sees something coming up that
> should not be in the results, we can remove it from the Quality
> Please let me know if you have any questions, or if you'd like to
> this up for discussion during the next TSC meeting.
Another thing: there seems to be no historical data available. I would
hate to lose the 4+ years of data accumulated in
What is being done about that?
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#12184): https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/message/12184
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opendaylight.org/mt/44622856/517193
Group Owner: TSC+owner@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opendaylight.org/g/TSC/unsub [agrimberg@...]
Andrew J Grimberg
Manager Release Engineering
The Linux Foundation