The Issue
When you create a Pull Request (PR) in a Git repository like Bitbucket or GitHub, you might see a mismatch where the status check fails indicating issues in the codebase while the Clayton code review comment thread appears clean, showing no reported issues.
This behavior can be confusing at first glance but it’s rooted in how these tools interpret code changes differently.
Status Checks: What Do They Really Scan?
A status check in Gearset, when integrated with Clayton, provides a comprehensive evaluation of the entire source commit associated with a Pull Request (PR). Unlike a simple code review that only examines the new changes introduced in the PR, a status check analyzes every file involved in the specific revision. This means it scans all files, regardless of whether the changes were made in the current PR or in previous ones.
This approach ensures the overall health of the codebase rather than just focusing on the changes being introduced. Even if a PR only updates a few lines of code, the status check will flag any pre-existing issues within the affected commit, treating the entire commit as a single unit. As a result, the report is considered "all-or-nothing" because if any issues are detected whether newly introduced or inherited from past commits the PR will fail the status check.
This approach can sometimes affect the workflow since a PR might fail not because the new changes introduced issues, but because there are existing issues from prior commits that are now being evaluated. Consequently, developers often need to address existing issues in the same PR, even if they were not the original authors of those issues. This ensures the quality of the entire project rather than allowing unchecked changes to accumulate over time.
The status check, therefore, acts as a comprehensive quality gate that maintains consistency and integrity across the entire codebase.
Reviewers
Here you can view the Clayton[Bots] feedback. This feedback takes a different approach by analyzing only the files changed in the current PR, specifically flagging issues introduced by those changes rather than highlighting pre-existing problems. This approach keeps the feedback relevant and focused on what was actually modified, rather than bringing up legacy issues.
Navigating Legacy Issues vs. Build Status Checks in Clayton
Imagine you open a pull request that only modifies three files. Clayton scans those files and finds no new issues, but your build status still fails. That’s because the status check scans the entire revision including untouched files that may contain legacy issues. If you’ve enabled the Legacy Code Filter, Clayton’s targeted review will correctly ignore those older problems, but the status check doesn’t. To manage this, use the Legacy Code Filter to prevent old issues from blocking new work, and remember that status checks take a broader view. Together, they offer a balanced perspective: Clayton for focused, actionable insights and the status check as a snapshot of overall code health.