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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Allow locally build actions with scrubber #21288

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Allow locally build actions with scrubber #21288

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

bozaro
Copy link
Contributor

@bozaro bozaro commented Feb 10, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Since cannot run remote cache key scrubbing action with remote execution, run this actions only locally. Actions without scrubber can still be executed remotely.

The part from #20070 that didn't cause much rejection.

@bozaro bozaro requested a review from a team as a code owner February 10, 2024 20:26
@github-actions github-actions bot added team-Remote-Exec Issues and PRs for the Execution (Remote) team awaiting-review PR is awaiting review from an assigned reviewer labels Feb 10, 2024
@sgowroji sgowroji added awaiting-user-response Awaiting a response from the author and removed awaiting-review PR is awaiting review from an assigned reviewer labels Feb 12, 2024
@bozaro bozaro mentioned this pull request Feb 15, 2024
Open
tjgq
tjgq requested changes Feb 15, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@tjgq tjgq left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you please add an integration test verifying that the fallback to local execution works? (Search for test_cache_key_scrubbing in //src/test/shell/bazel/remote/remote_execution_test.sh.)

@bozaro bozaro requested a review from tjgq February 16, 2024 10:02
tjgq
tjgq approved these changes Feb 16, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@tjgq tjgq left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, thanks. We should also amend the description for the --experimental_remote_scrubbing_config flag, but I will do that myself when I import it.

@tjgq
Copy link
Contributor

tjgq commented Feb 16, 2024

@bazel-io fork 7.1.0

@bazel-io bazel-io mentioned this pull request Feb 16, 2024
Closed
bazel-io pushed a commit to bazel-io/bazel that referenced this pull request Feb 16, 2024
@bozaro @bazel-io
Let scrubbed actions fall back to local execution when remote executi…
9d1b015 
…on is enabled.

As discussed in bazelbuild#20070, it's sometimes useful to scrub actions in a build that is otherwise remote.

Closes bazelbuild#21288.

PiperOrigin-RevId: 607723207
Change-Id: I31403de74fb81d07aac765cca68b2991b0230496
@bazel-io bazel-io mentioned this pull request Feb 16, 2024
Merged
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2024
@bazel-io @bozaro
[7.1.0] Let scrubbed actions fall back to local execution when remote…
ea88e07 
… execution is enabled. (#21384)

As discussed in #20070, it's
sometimes useful to scrub actions in a build that is otherwise remote.

Closes #21288.

Commit
8e0343c

PiperOrigin-RevId: 607723207
Change-Id: I31403de74fb81d07aac765cca68b2991b0230496

Co-authored-by: Artem V. Navrotskiy <bozaro@yandex.ru>
@iancha1992
Copy link
Member

The changes in this PR have been included in Bazel 7.1.0 RC1. Please test out the release candidate and report any issues as soon as possible. If you're using Bazelisk, you can point to the latest RC by setting USE_BAZEL_VERSION=last_rc.
Thanks!

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

@tjgq tjgq tjgq approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
awaiting-user-response Awaiting a response from the author team-Remote-Exec Issues and PRs for the Execution (Remote) team
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@bozaro @tjgq @iancha1992 @sgowroji