Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

馃悰 Huge content change PRs break the history AzFuncs #1367

Closed
2 tasks done
bradystroud opened this issue Jun 10, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed
2 tasks done

馃悰 Huge content change PRs break the history AzFuncs #1367

bradystroud opened this issue Jun 10, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
Type: Bug A problem with existing functionality

Comments

@bradystroud
Copy link
Member

bradystroud commented Jun 10, 2024

Cc: @JackDevAU

Occasionally we will want to execute some automation that effects every single rule. This results in large PRs.

Discovered when I merged 3000+ files changed for #1307
I had to revert the changes as the big PR caused problems with gathering the history to store in CosmosDB.

e.g. One of the functions tried to get the content for EVERY file changed in each PR - this caused the Function to time out

Also, if there is an automated process running on every rule, recording this in the history would make the data odd and misleading.

e.g. after #1307 I would have been credited for the most recent change on EVERY rule
(this data is still in GitHub so its not lost)

Tasks

@bradystroud
Copy link
Member Author

bradystroud commented Jun 10, 2024

Update

First problem was resolved by not updating the widget if the PR changes more than 100 files - this is too many files and would ruin the widget data anyway. It is better to be excluded.

It was resolved by adding a check to the Azure Functions in a few PRs starting with SSWConsulting/SSW.Rules.Functions#52

@bradystroud
Copy link
Member Author

Update

Allow skip of history updates for giant PRs

I added this functionality in #1365
I need to test it now

@bradystroud
Copy link
Member Author

bradystroud commented Jun 11, 2024

Done 馃嵕

There were a bunch of improvement made to get this done, but I think it handles it pretty well now

#1365
#1376
#1375
#1372
SSWConsulting/SSW.Rules.Functions#55

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Type: Bug A problem with existing functionality
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant