Skip to content

chore: refine OSS helper rules and point CLAUDE.md to them#24254

Open
orpiske wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
orpiske:quick-fix/refine-oss-helper-rules
Open

chore: refine OSS helper rules and point CLAUDE.md to them#24254
orpiske wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
orpiske:quick-fix/refine-oss-helper-rules

Conversation

@orpiske

@orpiske orpiske commented Jun 25, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Claude Code on behalf of Otavio Rodolfo Piske

Follow-up to #24251 — addresses review feedback from @davsclaus and reduces overlap between CLAUDE.md and .oss-ai-helper-rules/.

  • Revert build command to mvn verify (the -Dquickly variant skips tests, which is wrong for the default build command)
  • Add missing Records code style rule: "Records are allowed for internal/non-API classes; do NOT convert existing public API classes to Records"
  • Add a pointer in AGENTS.md (the file behind the CLAUDE.md symlink) directing agents to .oss-ai-helper-rules/project-standards.md for build commands and code style restrictions

This establishes .oss-ai-helper-rules/ as the source of truth for build commands and standards, reducing the risk of the two files drifting apart.

Test plan

  • Verify build command is mvn verify in project-standards.md
  • Verify Records rule is present in code style restrictions
  • Verify AGENTS.md points to .oss-ai-helper-rules/project-standards.md

@orpiske orpiske requested review from davsclaus and oscerd June 25, 2026 14:17
@davsclaus

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Do we have something about that any kind of coding assistance MUST be co signed in the commit message.

Co-authored by a coding agent, or whatever they do.

We need this from ASF to track what is AI assisted vs what is not.

Here is an example that is good

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

@orpiske orpiske force-pushed the quick-fix/refine-oss-helper-rules branch from 85266ec to 2d08d8b Compare June 25, 2026 14:24
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🌟 Thank you for your contribution to the Apache Camel project! 🌟
🤖 CI automation will test this PR automatically.

🐫 Apache Camel Committers, please review the following items:

  • First-time contributors require MANUAL approval for the GitHub Actions to run
  • You can use the command /component-test (camel-)component-name1 (camel-)component-name2.. to request a test from the test bot although they are normally detected and executed by CI.
  • You can label PRs using skip-tests and test-dependents to fine-tune the checks executed by this PR.
  • Build and test logs are available in the summary page. Only Apache Camel committers have access to the summary.

⚠️ Be careful when sharing logs. Review their contents before sharing them publicly.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the docs label Jun 25, 2026
@orpiske

orpiske commented Jun 25, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@davsclaus I think this is a configuration on the coding agent itself. I know Claude allows you to set a configuration like this in the settings file:

"attribution": {
    "commit": "... something something",
    "pr": "... something something"
  },

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

ℹ️ CI did not run targeted module tests.


⚙️ View full build and test results

@davsclaus

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

okay but if we add to the rules/skills files that the commit message must contain a "co-authored by AI" or similar to signal its AI assisted.


- **Build tool:** Maven
- **Build command:** `mvn -Dquickly install`
- **Build command:** `mvn verify`

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.

We are back to this, this is just too slow. And you have test command further below that does the same

@oscerd oscerd 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.

in the harness organization, I think we should remove the project when we merge the rules in the upstream.

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

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants