Make GHA for consistency cancel_redundant_workflow return useful err msg #55961
Conversation
💊 CI failures summary and remediationsAs of commit 382e451 (more details on the Dr. CI page): 💚 💚 Looks good so far! There are no failures yet. 💚 💚 This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI (expand for details).Follow this link to opt-out of these comments for your Pull Requests.Please report bugs/suggestions to the (internal) Dr. CI Users group. |
|
@janeyx99 has imported this pull request. If you are a Facebook employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
High-level question: this run script is getting kind of long, and putting it directly into the workflow YAML has a couple disadvantages:
- it doesn't get checked by our Python linters
- it's less convenient to run locally
Why not put this code directly into .github/scripts/generate_workflow_names.py?
Good point, we probably should have done this from the start |
|
@janeyx99 has imported this pull request. If you are a Facebook employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator. |
…msg (pytorch#55961) Summary: This way, the user gets more useful actionable results from the GHA. Pull Request resolved: pytorch#55961 Test Plan: CI Reviewed By: samestep Differential Revision: D27749013 Pulled By: janeyx99 fbshipit-source-id: bb0edbcdab29ba8ef99005f6fcf52de6782b468d
3 participants
This way, the user gets more useful actionable results from the GHA.
Test plan:
CI