Skip Pull Request Checks / Verify Description Checklist for dependabot

[cwperks]

Description

Skips the CI check Pull Request Checks / Verify Description Checklist for PRs from dependabot.

See the CI checks on a dependabot PR like this where the check fails since it doesn't contain the checklist on the PR template.

Check List

• New functionality includes testing.
  • All tests pass
• New functionality has been documented.
  • New functionality has javadoc added
• Failing checks are inspected and point to the corresponding known issue(s) (See: Troubleshooting Failing Builds)
• Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff
• Commit changes are listed out in CHANGELOG.md file (See: Changelog)
• Public documentation issue/PR created

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

[github-actions]

Compatibility status:

Checks if related components are compatible with change 39b3ffe

Incompatible components

Skipped components

Compatible components

Compatible components: [https://github.com/opensearch-project/custom-codecs.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/geospatial.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/flow-framework.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/observability.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/job-scheduler.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/cross-cluster-replication.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/opensearch-oci-object-storage.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/k-nn.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/ml-commons.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/asynchronous-search.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/neural-search.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/reporting.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/sql.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/security-analytics.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/common-utils.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/notifications.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/index-management.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/anomaly-detection.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/security.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/performance-analyzer-rca.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/alerting.git, https://github.com/opensearch-project/performance-analyzer.git]

[github-actions]

❌ Gradle check result for 39b3ffe: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[ashking94]

Thanks for this change. LGTM.

[cwperks]

Tests with failures:

• org.opensearch.cluster.coordination.AwarenessAttributeDecommissionIT.testConcurrentDecommissionAction

Impacted by flaky test: #12197

[github-actions]

❌ Gradle check result for 39b3ffe: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[cwperks]

Tests with failures:

• org.opensearch.ratelimitting.admissioncontrol.AdmissionForClusterManagerIT.testAdmissionControlResponseStatus

Impacted by #13045

[github-actions]

❕ Gradle check result for 39b3ffe: UNSTABLE

• TEST FAILURES:

      1 org.opensearch.index.IndexServiceTests.testAsyncTranslogTrimTaskOnClosedIndex
      1 org.opensearch.action.admin.cluster.node.tasks.ResourceAwareTasksTests.testTaskResourceTrackingDuringTaskCancellation

Please review all flaky tests that succeeded after retry and create an issue if one does not already exist to track the flaky failure.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 71.54%. Comparing base (b15cb0c) to head (39b3ffe).
Report is 144 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #13127      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     71.42%   71.54%   +0.12%     
- Complexity    59978    60587     +609     
============================================
  Files          4985     5030      +45     
  Lines        282275   284639    +2364     
  Branches      40946    41221     +275     
============================================
+ Hits         201603   203650    +2047     
- Misses        63999    64148     +149     
- Partials      16673    16841     +168     

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

[opensearch-trigger-bot]

The backport to 2.x failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Navigate to the root of your repository
cd $(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add ../.worktrees/OpenSearch/backport-2.x 2.x
# Navigate to the new working tree
pushd ../.worktrees/OpenSearch/backport-2.x
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport/backport-13127-to-2.x
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 032b81bff1e5c8064506b083c6b0e964d7ec4b19
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport/backport-13127-to-2.x
# Go back to the original working tree
popd
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove ../.worktrees/OpenSearch/backport-2.x

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is 2.x and the compare/head branch is backport/backport-13127-to-2.x.

[peternied]

@cwperks Could you see about backporting this change into the 2.x branch?

[cwperks]

@peternied 2.x does not have the pull-request-check workflow. Typically PRs to 2.x will not include the checklist so does it make sense to backport the workflow?

[peternied]

@peternied 2.x does not have the pull-request-check workflow. Typically PRs to 2.x will not include the checklist so does it make sense to backport the workflow?

Actually that sounds like another good criteria - in the 2.x line - but if features are directly going into 2.x still seems like they should use the same template. What do you think about opening up an issue that could be discussed during triage?