Skip to content

Split skip outcome into 4 possibilites (New)#2509

Open
pieqq wants to merge 5 commits intomainfrom
1337-new-skip-definitions
Open

Split skip outcome into 4 possibilites (New)#2509
pieqq wants to merge 5 commits intomainfrom
1337-new-skip-definitions

Conversation

@pieqq
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@pieqq pieqq commented Apr 27, 2026

Description

Instead of having OUTCOME_SKIP for manually skipped jobs and OUTCOME_NOT_SUPPORTED for any job that is skipped for a specific reason (failed dependencies, failed resources, unmet manifest), 3 new outcomes are created:

  • OUTCOME_SKIPPED_DEPENDENCY
  • OUTCOME_SKIPPED_RESOURCE
  • OUTCOME_SKIPPED_MANIFEST

And OUTCOME_NOT_SUPPORTED is deprecated but kept for backward compatibility (when using merge-submissions with subs made with older versions of Checkbox, for instance).

Then the reason why the job was automatically skipped is indicated in the JSON report in the skip_reason section.

The HTML report is also updated to take these modifications into account.

Important: the "status" is still mapped to skip for all of these new outcomes, so that we don't break C3 processing for the moment.

For more information, see the original specification document CR139.

Resolved issues

Fix CHECKBOX-1337

Documentation

Tests

  • Tested manually by running a few test plans, including the smoke test plan (submission.zip that contains the HTML and the JSON reports)
  • Unit tests adjusted
  • New unit tests created

pieqq added 2 commits April 27, 2026 17:30
Instead of having OUTCOME_SKIP for manually skipped jobs and
OUTCOME_NOT_SUPPORTED for any job that is skipped for a specific reason
(failed dependencies, failed resources, unmet manifest), 3 new outcomes
are created:

- OUTCOME_SKIPPED_DEPENDENCY
- OUTCOME_SKIPPED_RESOURCE
- OUTCOME_SKIPPED_MANIFEST

And OUTCOME_NOT_SUPPORTED is deprecated.

Then the reason why the job was automatically skipped is indicated in
the JSON report in the `skip_reason` section.

Fix CHECKBOX-1337
@pieqq pieqq marked this pull request as draft April 27, 2026 15:34
@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented Apr 27, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 74.19355% with 16 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 58.96%. Comparing base (1865528) to head (de25441).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
checkbox-ng/plainbox/impl/applogic.py 16.66% 5 Missing ⚠️
checkbox-ng/plainbox/impl/session/assistant.py 20.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
...ckbox-ng/plainbox/impl/session/remote_assistant.py 25.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
checkbox-ng/plainbox/impl/exporter/__init__.py 0.00% 1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
checkbox-ng/plainbox/impl/result_utils.py 94.73% 0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2509      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   58.92%   58.96%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         476      477       +1     
  Lines       48043    48085      +42     
  Branches     8578     8589      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits        28308    28354      +46     
+ Misses      18842    18835       -7     
- Partials      893      896       +3     
Flag Coverage Δ
checkbox-ng 76.09% <74.19%> (+0.06%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Comment on lines +276 to +281
# Add skip_reason if present
if job_state.result.skip_reason:
data["result_map"][job_id][
"skip_reason"
] = job_state.result.skip_reason

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've run some tests without these lines (running a test plan and exporting as text, HTML, tar.xz), and it seems to work. I'm not sure if these are needed at all (except maybe with the old XLS exporter?).

@pieqq pieqq marked this pull request as ready for review April 27, 2026 20:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant