Update PR data Daily collection (2026-03-16T01:48:19Z)

[gounthar]

This PR contains automatically updated PR statistics data. Generated by GitHub Actions.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated core dependencies to ensure compatibility with Java 8/11 and latest Jenkins versions
  • Enhanced CI/CD automation workflows for streamlined dependency and version updates
  • Improved project maintenance infrastructure with automated processes

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request automatically updates the failing_prs.json data file. It removes several entries corresponding to failing pull requests that are no longer current, ensuring the dataset remains accurate and up-to-date with the latest PR statistics.

Highlights

• Data Cleanup: Removed several outdated or resolved failing pull request entries from the data/consolidated/failing_prs.json file.
• Automated Update: The dataset was updated to reflect current PR statistics as part of a daily automated process.

Changelog

• data/consolidated/failing_prs.json
  • Removed an entry for jenkinsci/netdomain-labeler-plugin pull request generate-report.sh does not generate a markdown file with grouped PRs #1.
  • Removed an entry for jenkinsci/neuvector-vulnerability-scanner-plugin pull request Add the number of plugin installs next to each PR in each sheet #71.
  • Removed an entry for jenkinsci/nvm-wrapper-plugin pull request upload_to_sheets.py should create a sheet that lists the PRs whose checks are failing #16.
  • Removed an entry for jenkinsci/octoperf-plugin pull request Day by day #15.
  • Removed an entry for jenkinsci/opslevel-plugin pull request Use jq for name substitution in generate-report.sh #4.
  • Removed an entry for jenkinsci/ostorlab-plugin pull request Day by day #15.

Activity

• This pull request was automatically generated by GitHub Actions to update PR statistics data.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Review failed

The pull request is closed.

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: b3bd40af-cfcb-4539-a799-a48240bd98fc

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d647557 and d426ec6.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• data/consolidated/all_prs.json
• data/consolidated/failing_prs.json
• data/consolidated/open_prs.json
• data/junit5/junit5_candidates.json

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This pull request removes outdated developer metadata and Jenkins compatibility information from consolidated JSON data files tracking plugin PRs. Changes include cleanup of failed CI status entries and dependency version records, aligning with newer Jenkins baseline requirements.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Data Consolidation Cleanup data/consolidated/all_prs.json, data/consolidated/open_prs.json	Removal of redundant statusContext entries marked with failed CI checks and outdated Jenkins/dependency compatibility metadata; streamlines JSON to retain only successful build status records.
Failing PR Records data/consolidated/failing_prs.json	Wholesale removal of failing PR entries that referenced outdated Jenkins version requirement recipes (e.g., "Require 2.346.3"), significantly reducing the failing PR dataset.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~15 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• Update PR data Daily collection (2026-01-04T01:31:39Z) #317: Overlapping edits to consolidated PR data JSON files removing Jenkins/JVM version and CI failure metadata
• Update PR data Daily collection (2026-03-11T01:33:57Z) #409: Modifies same consolidated JSON datasets with coordinated removal of Jenkins CI failure/statusContext entries and Jenkins core version alignment
• Update PR data Daily collection (2025-03-20 00:45 UTC) #51: Directly related data cleanup—removing failing PR entries and replacing Jenkins error status entries within the same consolidated JSON records

Poem

🐰 Hop, hop! The old metadata hops away,
Failed checks and versions of yesterday,
Jenkins logs cleaned with a whisker's care,
Now only success floats in the JSON air! ✨

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch auto-update-pr-data

📝 Coding Plan

• Generate coding plan for human review comments

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request appears to be an automated daily update, removing entries from the failing_prs.json data file. The changes themselves are just data deletions and seem correct in the context of an automated job.

However, upon reviewing the context scripts provided (compute-stats.sh and process_prs.sh), which seem to be responsible for generating this data, I've identified several critical issues and areas for improvement that could affect the correctness and performance of the data collection process:

In compute-stats.sh:

• Critical Bug: The fetch_repos_with_releases function is an empty stub but is called on line 115. This will cause the script to fail or produce incomplete data.
• Performance: The script uses jq inside loops (lines 60, 92) to build JSON arrays. This is highly inefficient for large datasets as it re-parses the entire array on each iteration. It would be more performant to stream the results and process them once at the end.
• Inconsistent Logic: The date filtering in the GitHub API query (line 56) uses an AND condition for created and updated dates, while the later jq filter (line 100) uses an OR condition. This inconsistency is confusing and may lead to incorrect data filtering.
• Dead Code: The generate_date_range function (line 68) is defined but never used and should be removed.

In process_prs.sh:

• Critical Bug: The script expects a line-oriented input file of repo number pairs (lines 33-37), but compute-stats.sh produces a single JSON array. This will cause the script to fail. It should be adapted to parse the JSON file correctly, for instance, by using jq.
• Critical Bug: The script appends JSON objects directly to the output file (line 51), which results in an invalid JSON file (a stream of objects instead of a JSON array). This should be fixed to produce a valid JSON array.
• Performance: Reading the input file line-by-line using sed inside a while loop (line 33) is very inefficient and should be replaced with a while read loop.

Addressing these issues in the data generation scripts is crucial for ensuring the reliability and accuracy of these automated data updates.