fix(ci): fix stale artifact caching in prebuild step#1838
Merged
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 2 commits intomainfrom Apr 1, 2026
Merged
fix(ci): fix stale artifact caching in prebuild step#1838gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 2 commits intomainfrom
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 2 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
Contributor
Author
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. |
Clippy Allow Annotation ReportComparing clippy allow annotations between branches:
Summary by Rule
Annotation Counts by File
Annotation Stats by Crate
About This ReportThis report tracks Clippy allow annotations for specific rules, showing how they've changed in this PR. Decreasing the number of these annotations generally improves code quality. |
gyuheon0h
commented
Apr 1, 2026
| pub fn rebuild_artifacts<'b>( | ||
| crates: &[&'b ArtifactsBuild], | ||
| ) -> anyhow::Result<HashMap<&'b ArtifactsBuild, PathBuf>> { | ||
| static ARTIFACTS: OnceCell<Mutex<HashMap<ArtifactsBuild, PathBuf>>> = OnceCell::new(); |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure if this mutex is needed since this is only called once from the first prebuild step
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I don't think we need it anymore.
gyuheon0h
changed the title
gyuheon0h
force-pushed
the
gyuheon0h/fix-stale-prebuild
branch
from
7fdf23d to
e36428e
Compare
ekump
reviewed
Apr 1, 2026
ekump
approved these changes
Apr 1, 2026
Contributor
ekump
left a comment
ekump
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
one question about a rustdoc example, but LGTM
|
✅ Tests 🎉 All green!❄️ No new flaky tests detected 🎯 Code Coverage (details) 🔗 Commit SHA: 4ee2470 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Was this helpful? React with 👍/👎 or give us feedback! |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1838 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 71.50% 71.50% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 426 426
Lines 67087 67096 +9
==========================================
+ Hits 47973 47978 +5
- Misses 19114 19118 +4
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Contributor
Artifact Size Benchmark Reportaarch64-alpine-linux-musl
aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
libdatadog-x64-windows
libdatadog-x86-windows
x86_64-alpine-linux-musl
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
|
gh-worker-dd-devflow-36fce6
bot
added
mergequeue-status: queued
mergequeue-status: in_progress
and removed
mergequeue-status: queued
labels
gh-worker-dd-devflow-36fce6
bot
added
mergequeue-status: done
and removed
mergequeue-status: in_progress
labels
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d
bot
deleted the
gyuheon0h/fix-stale-prebuild
branch
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR do?
inner_build_artifacthad a simpleif artifact_path.exists() { return }check that skipped cargo build entirely when the binary file was on disk, even if source code had changed. This caused bin_test tests to run against stale binaries after code edits.Changes
rebuild_artifacts(used by the prebuild step): Always invokes cargo build, letting cargo's own dependency tracking handle staleness.fetch_built_artifacts(used by tests): Only looks up the prebuilt artifact path. If it doesn't exist, the test fails with a message telling the developer to add the artifact toall_prebuild_artifacts(). No silent fallback building that would hide missing prebuild entries and slow down CI.Motivation
Noticed bin_tests running against stale binaries here: https://gitlab.ddbuild.io/DataDog/apm-reliability/libddprof-build/-/jobs/1559430494
[PROF-14184]
Additional Notes
Anything else we should know when reviewing?
How to test the change?
Run
cargo nextest runlocally with clean artifacts directory, then making changes to observe rebuild of stale artifacts, then again with no changes to observe cargo handling of non-stale files[in progress]: doing the same combination of runs as the above local verification but in CI