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’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Bump backport version. #1009

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 13, 2023

Conversation

Yury-Fridlyand
Copy link
Collaborator

Signed-off-by: Yury-Fridlyand yuryf@bitquilltech.com

Description

Backport often fails last time, even if there are no merge conflicts. I hope updating the workflow would fix this.
@VachaShah, could you please describe what was fixed?

Issues Resolved

Failed ports:
#839 (comment)
#716 (comment)
#745 (comment)
#747 (comment)
#748 (comment)
...

Check List

  • New functionality includes testing.
    • All tests pass, including unit test, integration test and doctest
  • New functionality has been documented.
    • New functionality has javadoc added
    • New functionality has user manual doc added
  • Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

Signed-off-by: Yury-Fridlyand <yuryf@bitquilltech.com>
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #1009 (f6019dd) into 2.x (40d8d9f) will increase coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                2.x    #1009      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     98.18%   98.22%   +0.03%     
- Complexity     3224     3272      +48     
============================================
  Files           310      314       +4     
  Lines          8062     8205     +143     
  Branches        525      535      +10     
============================================
+ Hits           7916     8059     +143     
  Misses          142      142              
  Partials          4        4              
Flag Coverage Δ
sql-engine 98.22% <ø> (+0.03%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...arch/sql/expression/datetime/DateTimeFunction.java 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ch/sql/prometheus/client/PrometheusClientImpl.java 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...sql/prometheus/request/PrometheusQueryRequest.java 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...age/script/filter/lucene/relevance/MatchQuery.java 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...script/filter/lucene/relevance/RelevanceQuery.java 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...cript/filter/lucene/relevance/MultiFieldQuery.java 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...cript/filter/lucene/relevance/MultiMatchQuery.java 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ript/filter/lucene/relevance/MatchPhraseQuery.java 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ript/filter/lucene/relevance/QueryStringQuery.java 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ript/filter/lucene/relevance/SingleFieldQuery.java 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 7 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

@dai-chen dai-chen added the infrastructure Changes to infrastructure, testing, CI/CD, pipelines, etc. label Nov 2, 2022
@dai-chen
Copy link
Collaborator

dai-chen commented Nov 2, 2022

Thanks for working on this. Is there any chance to confirm if the previous failures can be fixed by this indeed? Or it doesn't hurt to upgrade it anyway?

@Yury-Fridlyand
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Unfortunately, I can't confirm. I don't know how to reproduce that and I can't test it on a fork.
I hope @VachaShah can give a bit more information - she is the author of CI workflow.

@VachaShah
Copy link
Contributor

Unfortunately, I can't confirm. I don't know how to reproduce that and I can't test it on a fork. I hope @VachaShah can give a bit more information - she is the author of CI workflow.

@Yury-Fridlyand @dai-chen The new version essentially gets latest changes from upstream and adds a new option filestoskip. I have not seen issues with the backport workflow failing even though there are no merge conflicts. From the PRs mentioned in the description, I see that it is failing because of merge conflicts.

@Yury-Fridlyand
Copy link
Collaborator Author

All backports I listed I did manually and git didn't report unresolved conflicts.

penghuo
penghuo previously approved these changes Nov 7, 2022
@VachaShah
Copy link
Contributor

All backports I listed I did manually and git didn't report unresolved conflicts.

Oh thats weird. I have not seen this issue in any other repos. May be we can keep an eye and see if it happens again?

with:
app_id: ${{ secrets.APP_ID }}
private_key: ${{ secrets.APP_PRIVATE_KEY }}
installation_id: 22958780

- name: Backport
uses: VachaShah/backport@v1.1.4
uses: VachaShah/backport@v2.1.0
with:
github_token: ${{ steps.github_app_token.outputs.token }}
branch_name: backport/backport-${{ github.event.number }}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks, fixed in ebc91aa.

Signed-off-by: Yury-Fridlyand <yuryf@bitquilltech.com>
Copy link
Member

@joshuali925 joshuali925 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i also saw the backport workflow failure but no git conflict for some PRs in the observability repo, seems like an issue in the workflow (i don't see relevant fixes in 2.1.0 vs 1.1.4)

Copy link
Collaborator

@MaxKsyunz MaxKsyunz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This PR is still relevant, right?

@joshuali925
Copy link
Member

yes, i don't know if this fixes conflict during backport but it's good to use updated versions..

@joshuali925 joshuali925 merged commit 81e5569 into opensearch-project:2.x Mar 13, 2023
@opensearch-trigger-bot
Copy link
Contributor

The backport to main failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add ../.worktrees/backport-main main
# Navigate to the new working tree
pushd ../.worktrees/backport-main
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport/backport-1009-to-main
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 81e5569a5ebc7b632e22edeb50c7602aac5fb0cc
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport/backport-1009-to-main
# Go back to the original working tree
popd
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove ../.worktrees/backport-main

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is main and the compare/head branch is backport/backport-1009-to-main.

@MaxKsyunz MaxKsyunz deleted the bump-backport-version branch March 13, 2023 18:23
@Yury-Fridlyand Yury-Fridlyand mentioned this pull request Jul 31, 2023
6 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport main infrastructure Changes to infrastructure, testing, CI/CD, pipelines, etc.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants