OpenJDK ports incorrectly shown as 'green' for unsupported OS versions on ports.macports.org

[Craig Treleaven]

> On Jan 22, 2021, at 4:39 PM, Nils Breunese <nils at breun.nl> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I maintain the openjdk* ports. These ports require Mac OS X 10.10 Yosemite or later, and the Portfile contains an explicit check for OS version: https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/blob/master/java/openjdk/Portfile#L307-L314
> 
> However, I got a report from a MacPorts user that https://ports.macports.org/port/openjdk8/summary shows 10.6, 10.7, 10.8 and 10.9 as green (https://trac.macports.org/ticket/62125). When I click any of these versions I get a page that says "No Such Resource”. Is this a bug in ports.macports.org or is there any way I can modify the Portfile to make versions older than 10.10 not show up as green?
> 

This is an artifact of using “known_fail yes”.  

To see what has happened, go to the github page for the port:

https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/blob/master/java/openjdk/Portfile

There is a small green checkmark on the line showing your latest commit.  Clicking it drops down a list of the buildbot jobs that were initiated from that commit.  Click on “Details” to be taken to the port watcher job, such as for OS X 10.9:

https://build.macports.org/builders/ports-10.9_x86_64-watcher/builds/41453

In the watcher job, step 5 is where the list of ports to be built on the builders is prepared.  The stdio link for that step is:

https://build.macports.org/builders/ports-10.9_x86_64-watcher/builds/41453/steps/subports/logs/stdio

In that log, it shows that none of the subports were going to be built on OS X 10.9 because they are known to fail:

Excluding openjdk because it is replaced by openjdk11
Excluding openjdk8 because it is known to fail
Excluding openjdk8-graalvm because it is known to fail
…
Excluding openjdk15-openj9-large-heap because it is known to fail

The port watcher job therefore finished successfully even though no supports were actually built.  I believe this “successful” result is what is displayed on the port page you linked to.  

Obviously not ideal.  I believe there was some work last summer on enhancing the port web page system.  (A much simpler summary page with install instructions, etc.)  Perhaps it handled such cases better?  Unfortunately it hasn’t been deployed.

Craig