Rename codeclimate to codequality

Description

In the first iteration of GitLab Code Quality, we hardcoded detection of the job by codeclimate, and the artifacts by codeclimate.json.

Also, we should think about this example: https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/ci/examples/code_climate.html. Technically it's still accurate as an example of integrating with any third-party service, but we link to this from other docs, so we should talk about our feature name, Code Quality, instead.

For backwards compatibility, we should look for either codeclimate or codequality, and deprecate codeclimate.

Proposal

Links / references

Documentation blurb

Overview

What is it? Why should someone use this feature? What is the underlying (business) problem? How do you use this feature?

Use cases

Who is this for? Provide one or more use cases.

Feature checklist

Make sure these are completed before closing the issue, with a link to the relevant commit.

• Feature assurance
• Documentation
• Added to features.yml

@bikebilly @ayufan Marking this for 9.5, but of course if we can get it in earlier, it would be appreciated.

added Stretch ~1918971 labels

mentioned in issue #2517 (closed)

@ayufan Who is assigned to this?

@dosuken123 Could you pick this up?

assigned to @dosuken123

OK!

@dosuken123 Please extend current code to support codeclimate and codequality.

Should we allow to use codeclimate and codequality and mark codeclimate as deprecated?

@markpundsack

Also, we should think about this example: https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/ci/examples/code_climate.html. Technically it's still accurate as an example of integrating with any third-party service, but we link to this from other docs, so we should talk about our feature name, Code Quality, instead.

The "Code Quality" documentation page is located in Merge Requests https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/code_quality_diff.html instead of CI/CD.

I feel we should leave https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/ci/examples/code_climate.html as a technical doc as 3rd party integration and we mainly point to https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/code_quality_diff.html from anywhere, which is the current hierarchy.

At least, we can add the link of code_quality_diff at the first place of CI/CD doc. e.g.

// doc/ci/README.md

## Review Apps
  - [Review Apps](review_apps/index.md)
  ...

## Code Quality
  - [Code Quality](user/project/merge_requests/code_quality_diff.html)

Does this solve your concern?

mentioned in merge request !2704 (merged)

Agreed on cross-referencing. Also, yeah, it's kinda silly where we've put things, but it's not obvious where else things should go. When Auto DevOps ships in 10.0, we should probably have a near-top-level topic for it, and Auto Code Quality should be in there, which might give us more options.

At any rate, I understand the idea of leaving the code climate doc unchanged because it's an example of a third-party integration, but it's not in a section about third-party integrations. It's in an "other" category. I think if we called it an example of doing code quality analysis, it would be just as reasonable.

And at the very least, the job name should be renamed for the example, even if we left the title unchanged.

@markpundsack Thanks. All codeclimate job names in documentation will be replaced.

Anyway, I think we should leave the artifact name codeclimate.json as is. If we integrate a new 3rd-party-code-quality-checker in GitLab(e.g. codechecker.json), code_quality job should detect either codeclimate.json or codechecker.json. And I assume we can't name it as code_quality.json unless there are identifiers in the json.

I don't have strong feelings about the artifact name.

@dosuken123 I believe that in future we should not care about actual artifact name as long as we annotate that information somewhere. Is this an arbitrary build results with support for multiple artifacts? https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/13227 :)

@ayufan So, somthing like

codequality:
  script:
    - blahblahblah > hoge.json
  results:
    - name: codeclimate
      when: on_success
      content: hoge.json

marked this issue as related to #3215

This issue will be followed up by https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/3215 to change our gitlab-ci.yml's job name.

added In review label

@dosuken123 I just realized we have a dependency on this for the Auto DevOps feature, which we're hoping to test end-to-end pretty soon. What's the ETA for this change?

@markpundsack The MR will be merged in today. I'll ping @ayufan to merge it as soon as possible.

closed via merge request !2704 (merged)

mentioned in commit 965d87a2

@dosuken123 It looks like the MR doesn't handle the rename of the artifact. Sorry if that wasn't clear, but the original intention was to rename both the job and the artifact to codequality and codequality.json respectively.

/cc @bikebilly @ayufan

reopened

mentioned in merge request gitlab-ci-yml!88 (merged)

@markpundsack OK. I'll work on that ASAP. For now, I'm not touching this as there are some concerns https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/2783#note_39483905 and https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/2783#note_39485094. If this is urgent, please assign me.

@markpundsack This contradicts with your sentence https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/2783#note_37948985 for https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/2783#note_37920188.

It seems natural to me that feature is codequality, but the format of the report is codeclimate, and thus why we use codeclimate.json. Assuming that we use codequality.json is assuming that codeclimate format is used by everyone for this kind of feature.

Their's specification: https://github.com/codeclimate/spec/blob/master/SPEC.md.

I'm fine with codequality.json too, but it seems to me to be consistent other-way around.

removed assignee

OK, I give in.

closed