-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
[ci breaking-change] feat: detect breaking jetstream images #3063
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’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
mikewilli
wants to merge
7
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
3062-breaking-changes-note
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
63de321
feat: detect breaking jetstream images
mikewilli 9c575ec
add docs in README
mikewilli 5c4e4ee
remove ci job check for testing
mikewilli 97a15d3
change step condition for testing
mikewilli 43b72ff
test different docker push
mikewilli 90bfc73
fix image_tags
mikewilli 6616de3
service account
mikewilli File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ | ||
| name: Jetstream Detect Possible Breaking Change | ||
|
|
||
| on: | ||
| pull_request: | ||
| branches: | ||
| - main | ||
| paths: | ||
| - 'jetstream/workflows/run.yaml' | ||
| merge_group: | ||
|
|
||
| jobs: | ||
| breaking-warning: | ||
| permissions: | ||
| pull-requests: write | ||
| runs-on: ubuntu-latest | ||
| steps: | ||
| - name: Possible Breaking Change Message | ||
| uses: actions/github-script@v8 | ||
| with: | ||
| github-token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | ||
| script: | | ||
| await github.rest.issues.createComment({ | ||
| owner: context.repo.owner, | ||
| repo: context.repo.repo, | ||
| issue_number: context.issue.number, | ||
| body: "⚠️ Detected changes to the Argo workflow, which could indicate breaking changes.\n\n Do you want to mark this image with the `breaking` tag using `[ci breaking-change]`?" | ||
| }); |
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess in theory if a breaking image is pushed around the time an analysis run is triggered/running (which uses the previous image version), the created tables for new experiments might end up having a creation timestamp <
breaking_time. I don't expect that this is likely to happen, so probably not worth thinking too much about it.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hm I think you mean this scenario?
This is ok because a subsequent run should pick up the breaking image using the existing logic in
_image_for_date(breaking image upload time is the latest image at the time of the table creation). In the other direction, if the breaking image is pushed just after table creation, then this check handles that (tables created before breaking image upload, so use the breaking image).Or am I misunderstanding your scenario?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, that's the scenario I was thinking of. I was ignoring the
_image_for_date, but makes sense. This shouldn't be a concern then