If anyone sees something failing relating to MS interacting with GitHub API, ping. I (finally) fixed the deprecation notices GH has been sending me forever about using PATs instead of username/password
@user12986714 Ah, I see. The github.com/elastic/go-elasticsearch/v8/esapi is actually the name of the dependency on the current master branch. The edit incorrectly made it into an nonexistent link. I'll try to fix the edit.
@user12986714 That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of body, mostly non-latin body, mostly non-latin title, potentially bad ns for domain in body, potentially bad keyword in body, +1 more (209): دانلود فیلم و سریال ایرانی by سیما دانود on meta.SE
@SmokeDetector it seems this PR failed one check, "coverage/coveralls — Coverage decreased (-2.3%) to 65.267%" ; please let me know if I've done something wrong somehow!
@JeffSchaller While I'm not as intimate with the inner workings, that looks like a code coverage notice. I don't think that's a problem caused by your PR
@JeffSchaller That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@JeffSchaller (cc @Machavity) It's definitely not something for you to worry about. It's a configuration issue on our end. It looks like a separate CI test for code coverage was added very recently. We previously haven't had it as a separate CI test. In fact, we'd only recently began tracking code coverage. There's a substantial issue that will result in any PR failing that test. So, at a minimum, the configuration needs to be changed to not auto-fail PRs.
The reduction in code coverage is the result of a test case being skipped in the PR. That test case will always be skipped for any PR (i.e. the test case is only run when the CI is run on the master branch). Thus, as currently configured, any PR is going to fail the code coverage test, unless the PR makes substantial improvements in code coverage. A test that auto-fails clearly isn't something we want as a gatekeeper for PRs. The configuration will need to change one way or another.
As a more meta issue, it's unclear to me that we're agreed we want to impose a code coverage requirement on changes. Pay attention to code coverage: yes. Encourage test improvement: yes. Require no drop in coverage: unclear. At a minimum, if we want it as a requirement, then the test needs to accurately show coverage numbers in all situations: testing on the master branch, testing in PRs, testing in a random development branch, etc.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in link text in body, link at beginning of body, pattern-matching website in body, potentially problematic ns configuration in body (301): Online Associate degree by olivia Ryan on webapps.SE
@SmokeDetector This is a too broad coding question, but the issue is the OP is using actual spam, which is claimed to be classified ads, as the examples.
