fix: show helpful message when /retest has nothing to retest by mathur07 · Pull Request #2399 · tektoncd/pipelines-as-code

mathur07 · 2026-01-15T22:09:25Z

📝 Description of the Change

When using /retest or /ok-to-test and all pipelines have already succeeded, the command now shows a helpful message instead of the misleading "could not find any PipelineRun in your .tekton/ directory" error.

New message:

"all PipelineRuns for this commit have already succeeded. Use /retest <pipeline-name> to re-run a specific pipeline or /test to re-run all"

This guides users to:

Use /retest <pipeline-name> to re-run a specific pipeline
Use /test to re-run all pipelines

👨🏻‍ Linked Jira

Fixes: SRVKP-10373

🔗 Linked GitHub Issue

Fixes #

🚀 Type of Change

🧪 Testing Strategy

🤖 AI Assistance

I have not used any AI assistance for this PR.
I have used AI assistance for this PR.

If you have used AI assistance, please provide the following details:

Which LLM was used?

Extent of AI Assistance:

Documentation and research only
Unit tests or E2E tests only
Code generation (parts of the code)
Full code generation (most of the PR)
PR description and comments
Commit message(s)

Important

If the majority of the code in this PR was generated by an AI, please add a Co-authored-by trailer to your commit message.
For example:

Co-authored-by: Gemini gemini@google.com
Co-authored-by: ChatGPT noreply@chatgpt.com
Co-authored-by: Claude noreply@anthropic.com
Co-authored-by: Cursor noreply@cursor.com
Co-authored-by: Copilot Copilot@users.noreply.github.com

**💡You can use the script ./hack/add-llm-coauthor.sh to automatically add
these co-author trailers to your commits.

✅ Submitter Checklist

gemini-code-assist · 2026-01-15T22:09:38Z

Summary of Changes

Hello @mathur07, 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 improves the functionality of the /retest and /ok-to-test commands. Previously, these commands would not initiate a new pipeline run if all existing pipelines had already passed. With this change, users can now force a complete re-execution of all associated pipelines, providing greater control and flexibility for triggering builds, even in the absence of failures.

Highlights

Enhanced /retest Command Behavior: The /retest and /ok-to-test commands now trigger a full re-run of all pipelines even if all previous pipeline runs have already succeeded, providing a way to force a re-run.
Test Case Clarification: A clarifying comment was added to pkg/matcher/annotation_matcher_test.go to explain the interaction between the filterSuccessfulTemplates function and the new re-run logic.

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.

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. ↩

gemini-code-assist

Code Review

This pull request introduces a useful fix to allow /retest to re-run all pipelines even if they have all succeeded. The implementation also extends this behavior to /ok-to-test. My main feedback is to add a unit test to cover this new logic and to update the pull request description to reflect the full scope of the change, including /ok-to-test.

pkg/matcher/annotation_matcher.go

mathur07 · 2026-01-15T22:23:06Z

/gemini review

gemini-code-assist

Code Review

This pull request correctly implements the desired behavior for /retest and /ok-to-test commands. When all pipelines have already succeeded, these commands will now trigger a re-run of all pipelines instead of doing nothing. The logic is sound, and the addition of an integration test (TestRetestRerunsAllWhenAllSucceeded) is a great way to ensure this new functionality is well-tested. I have one suggestion to make the new test even more robust by asserting on the log output.

pkg/matcher/annotation_matcher_test.go

zakisk · 2026-01-16T04:19:34Z

@mathur07 this is expected behavior, if someone really needs to re-run all the PipelineRuns then they should use /test command. (docs link)

infernus01 · 2026-01-16T06:28:24Z

@mathur07 The comment that we're getting when doing /retest (after every check is succeeded) is misleading, I think we need to just modify the comment to something like "all PipelineRuns for this commit have already succeeded. Use /retest <pipeline-name> to re-run a specific pipeline or /test to re-run all".

pipelines-as-code · 2026-01-26T06:27:19Z

🔍 PR Lint Feedback

Note: This automated check helps ensure your PR follows our contribution guidelines.

⚠️ Items that need attention:

🤖 AI attribution

The following commits lack an explicit AI attribution footer:

7e13f63 fix: improve message when /retest has nothing to retest
52922c4 fix: improve message when /retest has nothing to retest

If no AI assistance was used for a commit, you can ignore this warning.
Otherwise add an Assisted-by: or Co-authored-by: footer referencing the AI used.

ℹ️ Next Steps

Review and address the items above
Push new commits to update this PR
This comment will be automatically updated when issues are resolved

🔧 Admin Tools (click to expand)

Automated Issue/Ticket Creation:

/issue-create - Generate a GitHub issue from this PR content using AI
/jira-create - Create a SRVKP Jira ticket from this PR content using AI

⚠️ Important: Always review and edit generated content before finalizing tickets/issues.
The AI-generated content should be used as a starting point and may need adjustments.

These commands are available to maintainers and will post the generated content as PR comments for review.

_{🤖 This feedback was generated automatically by the PR CI system}

mathur07 · 2026-01-26T06:44:36Z

/gemini review

gemini-code-assist

Code Review

This pull request aims to change the behavior of the /retest command when all pipelines have already succeeded. I've found a critical discrepancy between the described behavior in the pull request and the actual implementation in the code. My review includes a comment with a suggested fix to align the code with the PR's stated goal.

pkg/matcher/annotation_matcher.go

aThorp96 · 2026-02-13T19:35:00Z

pkg/pipelineascode/match.go

 		if matchedPRs, err = matcher.MatchPipelinerunByAnnotation(ctx, p.logger, pipelineRuns, p.run, p.event, p.vcx, p.eventEmitter, repo, true); err != nil {
+			// Check if all pipelines have already succeeded - just log, don't create neutral status
+			if errors.Is(err, matcher.ErrAllPipelinesSucceeded) {
+				p.eventEmitter.EmitMessage(nil, zap.InfoLevel, "RepositoryAllPipelinesSucceeded", err.Error())


IMO this should create a comment on the pull request. Since we're not creating a neutral check, if we don't post a comment, from the users perspective PaC just didn't do anything.

Suggested change

p.eventEmitter.EmitMessage(nil, zap.InfoLevel, "RepositoryAllPipelinesSucceeded", err.Error())

p.eventEmitter.EmitMessage(nil, zap.InfoLevel, "RepositoryAllPipelinesSucceeded", err.Error())

if err := p.vcx.CreateComment(ctx, p.event, err.Error(), ""); err != nil {

return nil, fmt.Errorf("Error adding no pipelineruns to rerun comment: %v", err)

}

@aThorp96 if we create comment then it would be just last on MR/PR even after there are PipelineRuns to be run from that PR and also we have settings for comment whether user wants no comment at all or wants to update the comments.

@mathur07 we have func createNeutralStatus in the same file match.go for this. you can create neutral status on PR saying that there is no PipelineRun to trigger and it also checks for comment update and other settings.

Thanks for the review @zakisk

On comment strategy: The Repository CR docs say that comment_strategy (update / disable_all) applies only to comments about a PipelineRun’s status (e.g. “started,” “succeeded”). It also says: “Comments may still appear if there are errors validating PipelineRuns in the .tekton directory.” The message we post for “all pipelines already succeeded” is in that same category: it’s informational/guidance (like validation errors), not a PipelineRun status update, so it’s intended to be outside the scope of comment_strategy and can still be posted when the user would otherwise have no comment or only updated status comments.

On using createNeutralStatus instead of a comment: A neutral status makes sense when we’re reporting that no PipelineRun was triggered (e.g. “no match for this event”). Here we’re not reporting a check result; we’re explaining that there’s nothing to retest and how to use /retest <pipeline-name> or /test. That’s user guidance, not a CI “check,” so a PR comment is a better fit than a neutral status. Keeping it as a comment also keeps the behavior consistent with other informational messages (e.g. validation errors) that are not gated by the comment strategy.

Let me know what you think.

if you see here, neutral check is used to indicate that no matching pipeline run found. posting a comment for this would create confusion on next iteration (e.g. new commit push, or /test comment etc) that comment wouldn't be deleted and will be there on PR forever but if we create check-run it would disappear on next new commit push or /test command. so IMO I still want neutral check there

@zakisk I agree more with your previous comment asking to remove the neutral check. Consider the case where all pipelineruns have succeeded and there is a comment reflecting the status. If I run /retest and no tests are run it should not update the successful-status comment. This comment does not reflect any pipelinerun status and is a direct response to a comment; I would argue it is more confusing for users to for there to be a neutral status.

For a similar UX, consider Tide. When a PR's approval status changes a comment is updated, but when someone interacts with tide incorrectly, a separate, permanent comment is made informing the user that their comment has no effect and no change is made to the status comment nor check-run status.

@zakisk I agree more with your #2399 (comment) asking to remove the neutral check

I changed my perspective after full understanding the issue 😄

but when someone interacts with tide incorrectly

but I don't think that making /retest comment on a PR which doesn't have any failed pipeline run would be an "incorrect interaction"? and we create neutral status check when there is no matching pipeline run in .tekton directory as well so IMO when there is no failed pipeline run on /retest comment then it should be fine to create a neutral status check because in this PR changes it logs message (I am not stubborn on this 😄)

cc: @chmouel

aThorp96 · 2026-02-13T19:40:19Z

Please add unit tests and ideally E2E tests as well. Screenshot and/or link to an example of the new behavior would also be helpful. Thanks!

mathur07 · 2026-02-17T03:03:02Z

Updated Log SS:

mathur07 · 2026-02-17T03:03:47Z

Updated Comment SS:

aThorp96

Looks generally good to me. Two requests regarding the tests. One suggestion regarding the message itself.

I notice in the screenshot the comment reads All PipelineRuns for this commit have already succeeded. Use /retest to re-run a specific pipeline or /test to re-run all pipelines., it doesn't include the <pipelinerun-name> string. Was this screenshot taken before that was included in the string, or is it possibly being treated as an unknown html tag and being hidden? If the latter, I think including the backticks should ensure it's rendered correctly

pkg/matcher/annotation_matcher.go

pkg/matcher/annotation_matcher_test.go

pkg/pipelineascode/match_test.go

chmouel · 2026-02-26T07:16:14Z

/retest seems broken on gitea/forgejo and we need to test this there as well https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SRVKP-10913

When using /retest and all pipelines have already succeeded, show: "all PipelineRuns for this commit have already succeeded. Use /retest <pipeline-name> to re-run a specific pipeline or /test to re-run all" instead of the misleading "could not find any PipelineRun" message. Fixes: SRVKP-10373 Signed-off-by: Shubham Mathur <shumathu@redhat.com>

mathur07 · 2026-03-03T20:41:56Z

@chmouel I tested the changes on gitea/forgejo, and it looks good:

chmouel · 2026-03-05T12:56:48Z

thanks, this will be useful

gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

pkg/matcher/annotation_matcher.go Show resolved Hide resolved

mathur07 force-pushed the SRVKP-10373 branch from d8ebd42 to c1f20a9 Compare January 15, 2026 22:19

gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

pkg/matcher/annotation_matcher_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

zakisk added the do-not-merge label Jan 16, 2026

mathur07 force-pushed the SRVKP-10373 branch from c1f20a9 to 16f80ae Compare January 26, 2026 06:26

pipelines-as-code bot added cli fix testing labels Jan 26, 2026

mathur07 force-pushed the SRVKP-10373 branch from 16f80ae to ab313c0 Compare January 26, 2026 06:42

gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Jan 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

pkg/matcher/annotation_matcher.go Show resolved Hide resolved

mathur07 changed the title ~~fix: make /retest re-run all pipelines when all have succeeded~~ fix: show helpful message when /retest has nothing to retest Jan 26, 2026

mathur07 requested a review from chmouel January 26, 2026 06:59

mathur07 force-pushed the SRVKP-10373 branch from ab313c0 to 040d68b Compare January 26, 2026 14:29

chmouel reviewed Jan 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

pkg/matcher/annotation_matcher.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mathur07 force-pushed the SRVKP-10373 branch 2 times, most recently from 0aa799e to 07d7cc4 Compare February 12, 2026 04:16

aThorp96 reviewed Feb 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

mathur07 force-pushed the SRVKP-10373 branch 2 times, most recently from 33b45b0 to b8d5730 Compare February 17, 2026 02:45

mathur07 requested review from aThorp96 and zakisk February 17, 2026 03:14

mathur07 requested a review from chmouel February 17, 2026 03:14

aThorp96 reviewed Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

pkg/matcher/annotation_matcher.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pkg/matcher/annotation_matcher_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pkg/pipelineascode/match_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mathur07 force-pushed the SRVKP-10373 branch from b8d5730 to 52922c4 Compare February 17, 2026 22:22

mathur07 added 2 commits March 3, 2026 15:15

mathur07 force-pushed the SRVKP-10373 branch from 4192eeb to 2ce36b6 Compare March 3, 2026 20:37

chmouel merged commit ccefffa into tektoncd:main Mar 5, 2026
10 checks passed

chmouel mentioned this pull request Mar 5, 2026

chore: fix docs generation #2538

Merged

33 tasks

Conversation

mathur07 commented Jan 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

📝 Description of the Change

👨🏻‍ Linked Jira

🔗 Linked GitHub Issue

🚀 Type of Change

🧪 Testing Strategy

🤖 AI Assistance

✅ Submitter Checklist

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot commented Jan 15, 2026

Summary of Changes

Highlights

Footnotes

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mathur07 commented Jan 15, 2026

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

zakisk commented Jan 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

infernus01 commented Jan 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pipelines-as-code bot commented Jan 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🔍 PR Lint Feedback

⚠️ Items that need attention:

🤖 AI attribution

ℹ️ Next Steps

Uh oh!

mathur07 commented Jan 26, 2026

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

zakisk Feb 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aThorp96 commented Feb 13, 2026

Uh oh!

mathur07 commented Feb 17, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mathur07 commented Feb 17, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aThorp96 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mathur07 commented Jan 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

zakisk commented Jan 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

infernus01 commented Jan 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

pipelines-as-code bot commented Jan 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

zakisk Feb 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

mathur07 commented Feb 17, 2026 •

edited

Loading

mathur07 commented Feb 17, 2026 •

edited

Loading