update snapshot count function by Ahmed-Elsaka-JC · Pull Request #216 · eclipse-score/persistency

Ahmed-Elsaka-JC · 2026-01-15T13:23:36Z

update snapshot count function

Fixes #192

- update snapshot count function Fixes eclipse-score#192

github-actions · 2026-01-15T13:24:47Z

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run //:license-check

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output

[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.3.0) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: 6dc0b031-1d00-481b-bc02-37d51d676954
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
DEBUG: Rule 'rust_qnx8_toolchain+' indicated that a canonical reproducible form can be obtained by modifying arguments integrity = "sha256-oEubHgeZDdT0svMmBKJx7c3/2TdSI/vfwRUyDn+TPGA="
DEBUG: Repository rust_qnx8_toolchain+ instantiated at:
  <builtin>: in <toplevel>
Repository rule http_archive defined at:
  /home/runner/.bazel/external/bazel_tools/tools/build_defs/repo/http.bzl:394:31: in <toplevel>
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
WARNING: For repository 'score_process', the root module requires module version score_process@1.3.2, but got score_process@1.4.0 in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 3 packages loaded
Loading: 3 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Analyzing: target //:license-check (4 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //:license-check (4 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (82 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (148 packages loaded, 1926 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (159 packages loaded, 6997 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (159 packages loaded, 6997 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //:license-check (162 packages loaded, 9013 targets configured).
[11 / 14] JavaToolchainCompileBootClasspath external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath.jar; 0s disk-cache
INFO: From Generating Dash formatted dependency file ...:
INFO: Successfully converted 62 packages from Cargo.lock to bazel-out/k8-fastbuild/bin/formatted.txt
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //:license.check.license_check up-to-date:
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check.jar
INFO: Elapsed time: 20.965s, Critical Path: 0.48s
INFO: 14 processes: 5 disk cache hit, 9 internal.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 14 total actions
INFO: Running command line: bazel-bin/license.check.license_check ./formatted.txt <args omitted>
usage: org.eclipse.dash.licenses.cli.Main [-batch <int>] [-cd <url>]
       [-confidence <int>] [-ef <url>] [-excludeSources <sources>] [-help] [-lic
       <url>] [-project <shortname>] [-repo <url>] [-review] [-summary <file>]
       [-timeout <seconds>] [-token <token>]

github-actions · 2026-01-15T13:26:07Z

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

update tests Fixes eclipse-score#192

arkjedrz · 2026-01-19T11:30:54Z

Do not modify test logic.
Either expand list of xfails or (better) deal with other issue first #108

@arkjedrz current logic is not correct for scenarios we have like snapshot_max_count = 0 or 3.

so may i ask why we are not allowed to change test logic ?

Those tests expect snapshot_max_count to be parametrizable, and number of existing snapshots is compared to the number of max number of snapshots allowed.

arkjedrz · 2026-01-19T11:31:17Z

                "snapshot_max_count": snapshot_max_count,
            },
-            "count": 1,
+            "count": snapshot_max_count,


Do not change.

This test is called TestSnapshotCountFirstFlush. It should always try to perform a single flush operation.
Results shall be as following:

snapshot_count must always == 1 for snapshot_max_count >= 1.

snapshot_count must always == 0 for snapshot_max_count == 0.

This cannot be done correctly without #108 fixed.

arkjedrz · 2026-01-19T11:31:25Z

                "snapshot_max_count": snapshot_max_count,
            },
-            "count": snapshot_max_count + 1,
+            "count": snapshot_max_count,


Do not change.

This test is called TestSnapshotCountFull and the description states: "Checks that the snapshot count increases with each flush, up to the maximum allowed count.".
This test is to verify that snapshots pool saturates at the point specified by snapshot_max_count. It tries to flush one time more than there are snapshots allowed in the system - that's on purpose.
If You're seeing 2 snapshots were found when snapshot_max_count = 1 - it means that max value was not respected.

Again, this test is not possible to perform due to lack of #108

Signed-off-by: Ahmed Elsaka <ahmed.elsaka@bmw.de>

arkjedrz · 2026-01-19T14:39:05Z

Those tests expect snapshot_max_count to be parametrizable, and number of existing snapshots is compared to the number of max number of snapshots allowed.

arkjedrz · 2026-01-19T14:44:06Z

                "snapshot_max_count": snapshot_max_count,
            },
-            "count": 1,
+            "count": snapshot_max_count,


This test is called TestSnapshotCountFirstFlush. It should always try to perform a single flush operation.
Results shall be as following:

snapshot_count must always == 1 for snapshot_max_count >= 1.

snapshot_count must always == 0 for snapshot_max_count == 0.

This cannot be done correctly without #108 fixed.

arkjedrz · 2026-01-19T14:49:10Z

                "snapshot_max_count": snapshot_max_count,
            },
-            "count": snapshot_max_count + 1,
+            "count": snapshot_max_count,


This test is called TestSnapshotCountFull and the description states: "Checks that the snapshot count increases with each flush, up to the maximum allowed count.".
This test is to verify that snapshots pool saturates at the point specified by snapshot_max_count. It tries to flush one time more than there are snapshots allowed in the system - that's on purpose.
If You're seeing 2 snapshots were found when snapshot_max_count = 1 - it means that max value was not respected.

Again, this test is not possible to perform due to lack of #108

update snapshot count function

f87ae84

- update snapshot count function Fixes eclipse-score#192

Ahmed-Elsaka-JC force-pushed the afe_update_snapshot_count branch from 2bbfea7 to f87ae84 Compare January 15, 2026 13:24

Ahmed-Elsaka-JC marked this pull request as ready for review January 19, 2026 10:37

update tests

b9743e1

update tests Fixes eclipse-score#192

Ahmed-Elsaka-JC force-pushed the afe_update_snapshot_count branch from 9fdf6cf to b9743e1 Compare January 19, 2026 10:39

remove std cout logs

a902071

Ahmed-Elsaka-JC requested a review from arkjedrz January 19, 2026 10:46

arkjedrz requested changes Jan 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

Ahmed-Elsaka-JC added 2 commits January 19, 2026 14:48

Merge branch 'main' into afe_update_snapshot_count

fb4ad61

Signed-off-by: Ahmed Elsaka <ahmed.elsaka@bmw.de>

revert test update

8e5a894

Signed-off-by: Ahmed Elsaka <ahmed.elsaka@bmw.de>

arkjedrz requested changes Jan 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

arkjedrz requested a review from PiotrKorkus January 19, 2026 14:57

arkjedrz closed this Jan 26, 2026

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

update snapshot count function#216

update snapshot count function#216
Ahmed-Elsaka-JC wants to merge 5 commits intoeclipse-score:mainfrom
Ahmed-Elsaka-JC:afe_update_snapshot_count

Ahmed-Elsaka-JC commented Jan 15, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jan 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jan 15, 2026

Uh oh!

arkjedrz Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Ahmed-Elsaka-JC Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

arkjedrz Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

arkjedrz Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

arkjedrz Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

arkjedrz Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

arkjedrz Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

arkjedrz Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

arkjedrz Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

arkjedrz Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Conversation

Ahmed-Elsaka-JC commented Jan 15, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jan 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

License Check Results

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jan 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

github-actions Bot commented Jan 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading