Skip to content

fix(licensing): restore the ScalaPB notice on the vendored scalapb.proto - #8806

Merged
mengw15 merged 7 commits into
apache:mainfrom
mengw15:fix/8802-scalapb-proto-header
Oct 5, 2026
Merged

mengw15 merged 7 commits into
apache:mainfrom
mengw15:fix/8802-scalapb-proto-header

Conversation

@mengw15

@mengw15 mengw15 commented Oct 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Per the note at the end of #8802,
common/workflow-core/src/main/protobuf/scalapb/scalapb.proto is vendored
from ScalaPB (Apache-2.0) but carried the standard ASF header — the same
class of problem as #8775. Mirroring that fix:

  • scalapb.proto: ASF header → a vendored-from notice (upstream ships the
    file with no header; its license is the repository-level Apache-2.0, so no
    separate license copy is needed);
  • root LICENSE: a ScalaPB entry next to the other Apache-2.0 third-party
    entries ("this LICENSE file");
  • .licenserc.yaml: exempt the file from the ASF-header check.

Comment-only change to the proto; protoc output is unaffected. This addresses
only the vendored-file item in #8802 — the build-time-generation proposal
stays open there.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Addresses the vendored scalapb.proto item in #8802. Same pattern as #8775/#8776.

How was this PR tested?

License-metadata-only change; the Check License Headers CI job verifies the
exemption. The file is identical on main and both release branches.

Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

Generated-by: Claude Code (claude-fable-5)

@github-actions github-actions Bot added fix docs Changes related to documentations common labels Oct 1, 2026
@Yicong-Huang Yicong-Huang added release/v1.3 back porting to release/v1.3 release/v1.2 back porting to release/v1.2 labels Oct 1, 2026
@github-actions
github-actions Bot requested a review from xuang7 October 1, 2026 16:11
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Oct 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Backport auto-label report

This fix: PR was checked against each actively-supported release branch. A release/* label nominates a backport target; the branch's release manager approving this PR is what sends the fix there. The required Backport Approvals check stays red until every label below is approved, so each manager either approves or removes their own label — which is why the labels left on a merged PR are exactly the branches it reached.

Release branch Analysis
✅ release/v1.3 Change detected on this branch — label added; this fix is queued to backport here.
✅ release/v1.2 Change detected on this branch — label added; this fix is queued to backport here. @xuang7 decides: approving sends the fix here, removing this label declines it. The merge waits on one or the other. Review requested.

Auto-label run.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Oct 1, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

Based on the git blame history of the changed files, we recommend the following reviewers:

  • Contributors with relevant context: @aglinxinyuan
    You can notify them by mentioning @aglinxinyuan in a comment.

@codecov-commenter

codecov-commenter commented Oct 1, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.61%. Comparing base (57763e7) to head (3ff8d6b).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #8806      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     92.56%   92.61%   +0.04%     
- Complexity     5043     5709     +666     
============================================
  Files          1251     1259       +8     
  Lines         53358    56719    +3361     
  Branches       6618     7148     +530     
============================================
+ Hits          49392    52529    +3137     
- Misses         2319     2476     +157     
- Partials       1647     1714      +67     
Flag Coverage Δ *Carryforward flag
access-control-service 79.63% <ø> (+2.25%) ⬆️
agent-service 99.16% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 9de943c
amber 89.04% <ø> (+0.97%) ⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service 62.75% <ø> (+2.33%) ⬆️
config-service 90.51% <ø> (+3.13%) ⬆️
file-service 82.15% <ø> (+0.62%) ⬆️
frontend 96.56% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️ Carriedforward from 9de943c
notebook-migration-service 85.13% <ø> (+1.40%) ⬆️
pyamber 98.58% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 9de943c
workflow-compiling-service 74.86% <ø> (+0.76%) ⬆️

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Oct 1, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

🟢 2 better · 🔴 2 worse · ⚪ 11 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main e848f94 benchmarked on this same runner, so the delta is largely free of cross-runner hardware noise. The "7d avg" column still reflects the gh-pages dashboard. Treat <±5% as noise unless repeated.

Dashboard · Run

config throughput MB/s latency max Δ latest / 7d
🟢 bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 390 0.238 25,420/30,811/30,811 us 🟢 -12.3% / 🔴 +130.1%
🔴 bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 775 0.473 125,651/160,456/160,456 us 🔴 +8.2% / 🔴 +70.8%
⚪ bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 904 0.552 1,105,182/1,153,772/1,153,772 us ⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 -29.0%
Baseline details

Latest main e848f94 from same runner

config metric PR latest main 7d avg Δ latest Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 throughput 390 tuples/sec 410 tuples/sec 962.17 tuples/sec -4.9% -59.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 MB/s 0.238 MB/s 0.25 MB/s 0.587 MB/s -4.8% -59.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 p50 25,420 us 24,684 us 11,046 us +3.0% +130.1%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 p95 30,811 us 35,127 us 13,484 us -12.3% +128.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 p99 30,811 us 35,127 us 16,626 us -12.3% +85.3%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 throughput 775 tuples/sec 810 tuples/sec 1,234 tuples/sec -4.3% -37.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 MB/s 0.473 MB/s 0.494 MB/s 0.753 MB/s -4.3% -37.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 p50 125,651 us 122,320 us 87,952 us +2.7% +42.9%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 p95 160,456 us 148,359 us 93,929 us +8.2% +70.8%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 p99 160,456 us 148,359 us 103,096 us +8.2% +55.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 throughput 904 tuples/sec 919 tuples/sec 1,272 tuples/sec -1.6% -29.0%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 MB/s 0.552 MB/s 0.561 MB/s 0.777 MB/s -1.6% -28.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 p50 1,105,182 us 1,087,260 us 862,437 us +1.6% +28.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 p95 1,153,772 us 1,163,684 us 904,996 us -0.9% +27.5%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 p99 1,153,772 us 1,163,684 us 929,784 us -0.9% +24.1%
Raw CSV
config_idx,batch_size,schema_width,string_len,num_batches,total_ms,total_tuples,total_bytes,tuples_per_sec,mb_per_sec,lat_p50_us,lat_p95_us,lat_p99_us
0,10,10,64,20,513.20,200,128000,390,0.238,25420.22,30810.83,30810.83
1,100,10,64,20,2579.44,2000,1280000,775,0.473,125650.98,160455.65,160455.65
2,1000,10,64,20,22129.01,20000,12800000,904,0.552,1105182.31,1153771.92,1153771.92

@xuang7 xuang7 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM on the overall approach. Upstream ships the file without a header, and ScalaPB does not appear to have a NOTICE file.

One suggestion regarding the header: Apache RAT 0.16.1, which is used in our RC verification guide, does not seem to recognize the current three-line notice and reports 1 Unknown Licenses for this file.

Comment thread common/workflow-core/src/main/protobuf/scalapb/scalapb.proto Outdated
@mengw15
mengw15 requested a review from xuang7 October 5, 2026 07:39

@xuang7 xuang7 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

# Conflicts:
#	.licenserc.yaml
#	LICENSE
@mengw15
mengw15 enabled auto-merge October 5, 2026 18:49
mengw15 and others added 2 commits October 5, 2026 12:05
…11.4

Five option lines carried `[default = x]` where every ScalaPB release
writes `[default=x]`; the spacing arrived in apache#3182, which resolved a
duplicate copy in favour of the reformatted one. Restoring it makes the
file match the source the header cites, so the provenance note can be
checked with a plain diff and the Apache-2.0 modified-file notice does
not apply. Protobuf ignores the whitespace, and this is the form ScalaPB
itself ships.
@mengw15
mengw15 added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 5, 2026
Merged via the queue into apache:main with commit 1df2c56 Oct 5, 2026
91 of 97 checks passed
@mengw15
mengw15 deleted the fix/8802-scalapb-proto-header branch October 5, 2026 23:52
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Backport PR opened: #8867 (#8867) to release/v1.3 — the cherry-pick was clean, so it is ready for review, waiting on @mengw15. It needs to be reopened once to start its checks; the PR says how.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Backport PR opened: draft #8868 (#8868) to release/v1.2, assigned to @mengw15 — needs manual work because the cherry-pick conflicts.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

common docs Changes related to documentations fix release/v1.2 back porting to release/v1.2 release/v1.3 back porting to release/v1.3

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants