fix(docs, v1.2): Add missing license headers to Docs - #6982
Merged
xuang7 merged 3 commits intoJul 29, 2026
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
The cherry-pick conflicted and was committed with conflict markers. Resolve the conflicts on this branch, then mark this PR ready for review. Conflicting files:
|
xuang7
marked this pull request as ready for review
July 29, 2026 00:06
github-actions
Bot
added
frontend
Contributor
Author
Automated Reviewer SuggestionsBased on the
|
This was referenced Jul 29, 2026
Open
Yicong-Huang
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2026
…owlist (#6990) ### What changes were proposed in this PR? `release/v1.2` pins `sbt/setup-sbt@508b753e53cb6095967669e0911487d2b9bc9f41` (v1.1.22), which is **not on the ASF GitHub Enterprise actions allowlist**. GitHub rejects the workflow while building the graph, so the **Required Checks** workflow ends in `startup_failure` and no CI runs on `release/v1.2` — the `precheck` job never executes, which is why CI appears to "not trigger by label". This bumps all 6 pins to the allowlisted version already used on `main` (green there): ``` - sbt/setup-sbt@508b753 # v1.1.22 + sbt/setup-sbt@6444f4c # v1.5.2 ``` - `.github/workflows/build.yml` (×3) - `.github/workflows/build-and-push-images.yml` (×3) Minimal targeted change rather than backporting the large github-actions group bump (#6187), which touches 15 actions across 17 files and conflicts heavily against v1.2. ### Any related issues, documentation, discussions? Fixes #6989. `main` reached v1.5.2 via #6710 (`d28b761ae`). Unblocks backport PRs #6982 and #6984. ### How was this PR tested? This PR's own Required Checks run is the test: because the head branch already uses the allowlisted `sbt/setup-sbt@6444f4c8` (v1.5.2), the workflow should now start successfully instead of `startup_failure`. Diff is limited to the 6 action pins (verified no other `508b753e` references remain in `.github/workflows/`). ### Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? Yes — authored with Claude Code. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
### What changes were proposed in this PR? This just adds missing license headers to the markdown documentation and other markdown files in the source. It also enables checking of markdown files for these headers via skywalking eyes by changing the .licenserc config. ### Performance Impact None- these are headers in doc files. ### Any related issues, documentation, discussions? Closes #6955 Would be a follow on to the inital addition of license headers to other source files, e.g. #3415 and #4135 related vote thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/x12wsodfyhqs1fxr95fw6ngyw1xxn5jk ### How was this PR tested? If the CI check passes it should be fine. I only allowed one file which I think is not under ASL2, but mentioned elsewhere ### Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. (backported from commit 214402f) Co-authored-by: Yicong Huang <17627829+Yicong-Huang@users.noreply.github.com>
Keep the release/v1.2 title (# Texera Deployment) and add the ASF license header from #6958. bin/local-dev/README.md was already resolved.
This v1.2-only doc was missing a header; the markdown header check enabled by #6958 flagged it (invalid: 1). Header placed before the front matter, matching docs/tutorials/_index.md.
Yicong-Huang
force-pushed
the
backport/6958-add-missing-license-headers-to-docs-v1.2
branch
from
July 29, 2026 03:42
d55b007 to
b85b4e3
Compare
❌ 1 Tests Failed:
View the top 1 failed test(s) by shortest run time
To view more test analytics, go to the Test Analytics Dashboard |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## release/v1.2 #6982 +/- ##
==================================================
- Coverage 53.95% 52.39% -1.56%
- Complexity 1441 2489 +1048
==================================================
Files 809 1077 +268
Lines 34144 42267 +8123
Branches 3448 4548 +1100
==================================================
+ Hits 18421 22146 +3725
- Misses 14815 18809 +3994
- Partials 908 1312 +404
*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
xuang7
approved these changes
Jul 29, 2026
xuang7
changed the title
xuang7
deleted the
backport/6958-add-missing-license-headers-to-docs-v1.2
branch
July 29, 2026 05:46
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this PR?
Automated backport of #6958 to
release/v1.2.Source: 214402f · automation run
Any related issues, documentation, discussions?
Backport of #6958. Originally linked #6955. https://lists.apache.org/thread/x12wsodfyhqs1fxr95fw6ngyw1xxn5jk
How was this PR tested?
Release-branch CI runs on this branch once the conflicts are resolved and this PR is marked ready for review.
Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.