ci: improve things around auto-apply of fixes #36349

tobiasdiez · 2023-09-28T01:02:36Z

Fixes some of the mess that was introduced by merging #36338. In particular,

Having PRs open with blocker label no longer influences workflows triggered by push to the main branch (see eg https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/6332061127/job/17197852786)
Reduce the number of "checks" displayed below the PR

📝 Checklist

The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory.
The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
I have created tests covering the changes.
I have updated the documentation accordingly.

⌛ Dependencies

mkoeppe · 2023-09-28T01:11:12Z

Ticket description should probably explain what you are trying to fix here.

tobiasdiez · 2023-09-28T01:24:01Z

better now?

mkoeppe · 2023-09-28T01:33:59Z

Kindly rephrase with less aggression.

tobiasdiez · 2023-09-28T03:27:00Z

It works in principle, although it for some reason things its on the master branch. I let you @mkoeppe fix this and change the other workflows accordingly.

mkoeppe · 2023-09-28T03:43:36Z

Please work on the ticket description. Bullet point 2 is unclear to me. What is broken, where can I see an example of it, why would any of the changes that you made fix it.

tobiasdiez · 2023-09-28T03:50:57Z

Currently, it tries to apply fixes during the push event: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/6332061127/job/17197852786

mkoeppe · 2023-09-28T03:56:44Z

That the step "Store CI fixes" fails is already fixed in #36348.

mkoeppe · 2023-09-28T03:57:10Z

Explain why you think this thing should only applied to pull requests?

tobiasdiez · 2023-09-28T04:02:59Z

Because the pushes to develop are the ground truth and should not depend on external factors (in particular not on PRs that are not yet merged). Moreover, the point of this feature is to lessen the pain of CI in PRs to fail without the hotfixes applied.

mkoeppe · 2023-09-28T04:24:35Z

OK, that's certainly a plausible point for pushes of release tags to sagemath/sage, and for pushes to develop and master of sagemath/sage.

It's less clear to me for other pushes (to a branch, to other tags, to another repository).

For example, I like to push tags to my fork to trigger the portability workflows -- those definitely benefit from applying the CI fixes; it's one fewer thing to do manually.

So this may need more thought. I don't think immediate action is needed.

tobiasdiez · 2023-09-28T04:56:17Z

Feel free to modify the workflows in your fork according to your needs.

mkoeppe · 2023-10-10T16:36:18Z

Have you tested it with 32 bit, as discussed?

tobiasdiez · 2023-10-10T16:39:05Z

We don't use 32bit to test PRs.

mkoeppe · 2023-10-10T16:46:04Z

Oh, I see, you have introduced a condition on github.event_name == 'pull_request' here.
But I don't think that's a good idea.

Edit, to elaborate: Now with some experience of using the auto-apply, I can say that we definitely want it to take effect generally, not just on PRs. In particular the (long-running) portability tests need this so that a trivial error does not block portability testing for the whole release.

mkoeppe · 2023-10-10T17:03:48Z

To address the cosmetic concern of repeated line in the Actions check list, I'd suggest to just merge build.yml, doc-build.yml, and doc-build-pdf.yml into one file.

tobiasdiez · 2023-10-20T15:55:14Z

I don't support this change to when the CI fixes should be applied; I don't think it's an improvement at all.

The "get_ci_fixes" is just visual noise nobody cares about, but it's always in your face. They have to run first (and are completed first), so they show up first in the checks list.

Compare the view without this PR

to the view here. Which one contains more relevant information?

Also if you go to the "Build & Test" workflow you directly see at which point it broke and don't have to select the actual build step as you have to do right now. And it is consistent with the conda and linter workflow. Finally, I don't see any disadvantages of implementing it that way (except maybe that we have to install the gh cli manually, but that's outsourced to a well-working action, so minor point).

@kwankyu @dimpase could you please review this PR (if you agree that it adds value, of course).

mkoeppe · 2023-10-20T18:45:57Z

I don't support this change to when the CI fixes should be applied; I don't think it's an improvement at all.

In case it was unclear at all (?!), I was referring to the change here that restricts the application of the CI fixes to a set of conditions, instead of running it unconditionally:

if: ${{ github.event_name == 'pull_request' || github.event.repository.fork }}
except for some workflows

kwankyu · 2023-10-20T22:30:07Z

@kwankyu @dimpase could you please review this PR (if you agree that it adds value, of course).

I am all for improving the cosmetic issue.

Installing gh cli seems all right to me. But if it does matter regarding portability tests (i386 ?), I will leave the decision to @mkoeppe, as he is orchestrating ci pipelines.

If the situation is like "yes gh cli for PR tests, but no gh cli for portability tests", I would rather live with the cosmetic issue instead of sacrificing consistency.

tobiasdiez · 2023-10-21T16:13:33Z

I don't support this change to when the CI fixes should be applied; I don't think it's an improvement at all.

In case it was unclear at all (?!), I was referring to the change here that restricts the application of the CI fixes to a set of conditions, instead of running it unconditionally:
* ` if: ${{ github.event_name == 'pull_request' || github.event.repository.fork }}`

* except for some workflows

What are you missing? It still runs on pull_request and pushes on forks. Do you want to really run it on push to develop?

If the situation is like "yes gh cli for PR tests, but no gh cli for portability tests", I would rather live with the cosmetic issue instead of sacrificing consistency.

Both the "Build & Test" and the portability workflows need gh-cli to merge the changes from blocker prs. Only the way to install it is slightly different (btw, why are we making our lives so hard and don't have git + ghcli in the docker images?)

mkoeppe · 2023-10-21T19:18:03Z

btw, why are we making our lives so hard and don't have git + ghcli in the docker images?

The Docker images test different configurations of system packages ... so as to make sure that Sage builds on different configurations of system packages on users' systems (... and deployments). In particular, the -minimal configurations should definitely not contain these packages.

mkoeppe · 2023-10-21T20:47:32Z

Do you want to really run it on push to develop?

Yes

mkoeppe · 2023-10-21T20:48:25Z

.github/workflows/build.yml

+        if: runner.os == 'Linux'
+        run: |
+          apt update
+          apt install -y git


No, one cannot assume that on Linux, apt is the package manger.

Well, it's working, so I call it good enough...

When the workflow is run manually, the container can be selected by the user. As you know.
"That it's working" is because you didn't test it on a system that does not use apt.

.github/workflows/doc-build-pdf.yml

mkoeppe · 2023-10-21T20:51:20Z

.ci/merge-fixes.sh

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ else
        $GH pr checkout -b pr-$a $a
        git fetch --unshallow --all
        git checkout -q test_head
-        if git merge --no-edit --squash -q pr-$a; then
+        if git merge --no-edit --squash --allow-unrelated-histories -q pr-$a; then


if one has to use this flag, typically something's wrong already

The checkout action results in a detached head for PRs. You can call that "wrong" but its by design.

tobiasdiez · 2023-10-22T09:57:08Z

Do you want to really run it on push to develop?

Yes

With what reasoning? What advantages do you see?

We actually had the situation that the conda workflow in some PRs was failing: maybe because of another blocker PR that got auto-merged, maybe not. We were not able to say why, because the conda workflow in the PR with the blocker label was running the same code as the one in the develop branch. So if you have an unmerged PR with blocker label, the workflows it runs are the same as the one in the develop branch, in other words one cannot see if some behavior is due to some changes in this PR or not. This is very bad in my opinion. I might also remind you that the idea of the feature was to help with broken PRs, not quickly fix workflows on the develop branch by virtually merging the PR.

mkoeppe · 2023-10-22T15:57:53Z

I might also remind you that the idea of the feature was to help with broken PRs, not quickly fix workflows on the develop branch by virtually merging the PR.

You have said that before, and it may have been your understanding of why I implemented #36338, but it was only part of the motivation. It's working as designed in #36338.

tobiasdiez · 2023-10-22T17:36:39Z

Also mind responding to the actual main part of my comment?

mkoeppe · 2023-10-22T17:43:27Z

We actually had the situation that the conda workflow in some PRs was failing: maybe because of another blocker PR that got auto-merged, maybe not. We were not able to say why [..........]

No, there's no mystery, the workflow logs clearly which blocker PRs are applied and for which the merge is failing.

tobiasdiez · 2023-10-22T17:52:21Z

We actually had the situation that the conda workflow in some PRs was failing: maybe because of another blocker PR that got auto-merged, maybe not. We were not able to say why [..........]

No, there's no mystery, the workflow logs clearly which blocker PRs are applied and for which the merge is failing.

The problem was that some doctests in repl were failing, probably/maybe because of changes in that blocker PR. And there was no way to easily run the tests without any PRs applied, so it was not possible to easily see if these errors are coming from the blocker or because some conda package updated or whatever.

Please give me one single situation where it is handy to apply the fixes in the build & test workflow also for pushes to develop.

github-actions · 2023-11-15T07:04:59Z

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit 20fb5c3; changes) is ready! 🎉

@tornaria

…customizable by repository variable   Instead of using `gh pr checkout`, we obtain the CI fixes via their patch URLs. - This is faster because typically we do not have to unshallow the repo to apply the patches (seconds instead of ~2 minutes) - Fewer surprises when applied to a PR based on an older release - Conjecturally uses fewer API queries, helping avoid sagemath#36685 When a repository variable `SAGE_CI_FIXES_FROM_REPOSITORIES` is set in a fork, it is used instead of the hardcoded sagemath/sage as the source(s) of the CI fixes; this gives better control in decentralized development. When set to "none", this also makes it possible to see the "ground truth", addressing a concern raised in sagemath#36349 (comment). See comments at the top of `.ci/merge-fixes.sh` for details. Also improving the display of details of the merged PRs, as requested by @tornaria in sagemath#36696 (comment) Example runs: - https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/6854931832/job/186389018 59?pr=36686 (here it recovers gracefully from failed merges due to the 10.2.rc1/10.2.rc2 tagging confusions) - https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/6855410957/job/1864038039 8#step:3:8 (I have set `SAGE_CI_FIXES_FROM_REPOSITORIES=none` in my fork -- for testing this PR)    ### 📝 Checklist     - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies   URL: sagemath#36686 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Gonzalo Tornaría, Kwankyu Lee, Matthias Köppe

@tornaria

…customizable by repository variable   Instead of using `gh pr checkout`, we obtain the CI fixes via their patch URLs. - This is faster because typically we do not have to unshallow the repo to apply the patches (seconds instead of ~2 minutes) - Fewer surprises when applied to a PR based on an older release - Conjecturally uses fewer API queries, helping avoid sagemath#36685 When a repository variable `SAGE_CI_FIXES_FROM_REPOSITORIES` is set in a fork, it is used instead of the hardcoded sagemath/sage as the source(s) of the CI fixes; this gives better control in decentralized development. When set to "none", this also makes it possible to see the "ground truth", addressing a concern raised in sagemath#36349 (comment). See comments at the top of `.ci/merge-fixes.sh` for details. Also improving the display of details of the merged PRs, as requested by @tornaria in sagemath#36696 (comment) Example runs: - https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/6854931832/job/186389018 59?pr=36686 (here it recovers gracefully from failed merges due to the 10.2.rc1/10.2.rc2 tagging confusions) - https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/6855410957/job/1864038039 8#step:3:8 (I have set `SAGE_CI_FIXES_FROM_REPOSITORIES=none` in my fork -- for testing this PR)    ### 📝 Checklist     - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies   URL: sagemath#36686 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Gonzalo Tornaría, Kwankyu Lee, Matthias Köppe

@kwankyu

…arate jobs for pyright, build, modularized tests, long tests    Running the containers explicitly, instead of using the declarative `container:` feature of GH Actions gives us more control: - we can create more space on the host if necessary; we just scraped by an out of space condition in sagemath#36473 / sagemath#36469 (comment) - we can run some operations outside of the container but in the same job; this will make the separate "Get CI fixes" jobs unnecessary, addressing the cosmetic concerns from sagemath#36338 (comment), sagemath#36349 - it enables caching between the various workflows (as first discussed in sagemath#36446). We split out static type checking with pyright into its separate workflow: - **pyright.yml**: As static checking does not need a build of the Sage library, for PRs that do not make any changes to packages, there's nothing to build, and the workflow gives a fast turnaround just after 10 minutes. For applying the CI fixes from blocker tickets, this workflow uses the technique favored in sagemath#36349. The workflow **build.yml** first launches a job: - **test-new:** It builds incrementally (using a tox-generated `Dockerfile` and https://github.com/marketplace/actions/build-and-push- docker-images) and does the quick incremental test. This completes within 10 to 20 minutes when there's no change. After this is completed, more jobs are launched: - **test-mod:** It again builds incrementally and tests a modularized distribution. Later (with more from sagemath#35095), more jobs will be added to this matrix job for other distributions. - **test-long:** It again builds incrementally and runs the long test. The workflows **doc-build.yml** and **doc-build-pdf.yml** again build incrementally and then build the documentation. The diffing code for the HTML documentation now runs in the host, not the container, which simplifies things. (To show that diffing still works, we include a small change to the Sage library.) Splitting the workflow jobs implements @kwankyu's suggestion from: - sagemath#35652 (comment) (Fixes sagemath#35814) The steps "again builds incrementally" actually use the GH Actions cache, https://docs.docker.com/build/ci/github-actions/cache/#cache- backend-api. When nothing is cached and the 3 workflows are launched in parallel, they may each build the same thing. But when there's congestion that leads to the workflows to be run serially, the 2nd and 3rd workflow will be able to use the cache from the 1st workflow. This elasticity may be helpful in reducing congestion. There is a rather small per-project limit of 10 GB for this cache, so we'll have to see how effectively caching works in practice. See https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/caches   ### 📝 Checklist     - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies  - Depends on sagemath#36938 (merged here) - Depends on sagemath#36951 (merged here) - Depends on sagemath#37351 (merged here) - Depends on sagemath#37750 (merged here)  URL: sagemath#36498 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee, Matthias Köppe

@kwankyu

…arate jobs for pyright, build, modularized tests, long tests    Running the containers explicitly, instead of using the declarative `container:` feature of GH Actions gives us more control: - we can create more space on the host if necessary; we just scraped by an out of space condition in sagemath#36473 / sagemath#36469 (comment) - we can run some operations outside of the container but in the same job; this will make the separate "Get CI fixes" jobs unnecessary, addressing the cosmetic concerns from sagemath#36338 (comment), sagemath#36349 - it enables caching between the various workflows (as first discussed in sagemath#36446). We split out static type checking with pyright into its separate workflow: - **pyright.yml**: As static checking does not need a build of the Sage library, for PRs that do not make any changes to packages, there's nothing to build, and the workflow gives a fast turnaround just after 10 minutes. For applying the CI fixes from blocker tickets, this workflow uses the technique favored in sagemath#36349. The workflow **build.yml** first launches a job: - **test-new:** It builds incrementally (using a tox-generated `Dockerfile` and https://github.com/marketplace/actions/build-and-push- docker-images) and does the quick incremental test. This completes within 10 to 20 minutes when there's no change. After this is completed, more jobs are launched: - **test-mod:** It again builds incrementally and tests a modularized distribution. Later (with more from sagemath#35095), more jobs will be added to this matrix job for other distributions. - **test-long:** It again builds incrementally and runs the long test. The workflows **doc-build.yml** and **doc-build-pdf.yml** again build incrementally and then build the documentation. The diffing code for the HTML documentation now runs in the host, not the container, which simplifies things. (To show that diffing still works, we include a small change to the Sage library.) Splitting the workflow jobs implements @kwankyu's suggestion from: - sagemath#35652 (comment) (Fixes sagemath#35814) The steps "again builds incrementally" actually use the GH Actions cache, https://docs.docker.com/build/ci/github-actions/cache/#cache- backend-api. When nothing is cached and the 3 workflows are launched in parallel, they may each build the same thing. But when there's congestion that leads to the workflows to be run serially, the 2nd and 3rd workflow will be able to use the cache from the 1st workflow. This elasticity may be helpful in reducing congestion. There is a rather small per-project limit of 10 GB for this cache, so we'll have to see how effectively caching works in practice. See https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/caches   ### 📝 Checklist     - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies  - Depends on sagemath#36938 (merged here) - Depends on sagemath#36951 (merged here) - Depends on sagemath#37351 (merged here) - Depends on sagemath#37750 (merged here)  URL: sagemath#36498 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee, Matthias Köppe

@kwankyu

…arate jobs for pyright, build, modularized tests, long tests    Running the containers explicitly, instead of using the declarative `container:` feature of GH Actions gives us more control: - we can create more space on the host if necessary; we just scraped by an out of space condition in sagemath#36473 / sagemath#36469 (comment) - we can run some operations outside of the container but in the same job; this will make the separate "Get CI fixes" jobs unnecessary, addressing the cosmetic concerns from sagemath#36338 (comment), sagemath#36349 - it enables caching between the various workflows (as first discussed in sagemath#36446). We split out static type checking with pyright into its separate workflow: - **pyright.yml**: As static checking does not need a build of the Sage library, for PRs that do not make any changes to packages, there's nothing to build, and the workflow gives a fast turnaround just after 10 minutes. For applying the CI fixes from blocker tickets, this workflow uses the technique favored in sagemath#36349. The workflow **build.yml** first launches a job: - **test-new:** It builds incrementally (using a tox-generated `Dockerfile` and https://github.com/marketplace/actions/build-and-push- docker-images) and does the quick incremental test. This completes within 10 to 20 minutes when there's no change. After this is completed, more jobs are launched: - **test-mod:** It again builds incrementally and tests a modularized distribution. Later (with more from sagemath#35095), more jobs will be added to this matrix job for other distributions. - **test-long:** It again builds incrementally and runs the long test. The workflows **doc-build.yml** and **doc-build-pdf.yml** again build incrementally and then build the documentation. The diffing code for the HTML documentation now runs in the host, not the container, which simplifies things. (To show that diffing still works, we include a small change to the Sage library.) Splitting the workflow jobs implements @kwankyu's suggestion from: - sagemath#35652 (comment) (Fixes sagemath#35814) The steps "again builds incrementally" actually use the GH Actions cache, https://docs.docker.com/build/ci/github-actions/cache/#cache- backend-api. When nothing is cached and the 3 workflows are launched in parallel, they may each build the same thing. But when there's congestion that leads to the workflows to be run serially, the 2nd and 3rd workflow will be able to use the cache from the 1st workflow. This elasticity may be helpful in reducing congestion. There is a rather small per-project limit of 10 GB for this cache, so we'll have to see how effectively caching works in practice. See https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/caches   ### 📝 Checklist     - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies  - Depends on sagemath#36938 (merged here) - Depends on sagemath#36951 (merged here) - Depends on sagemath#37351 (merged here) - Depends on sagemath#37750 (merged here) - Depends on sagemath#37277 (merged here)  URL: sagemath#36498 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee, Matthias Köppe

tobiasdiez added 2 commits September 28, 2023 08:08

Only apply fixes for PRs

97bfb3a

Install git as well

75324e2

tobiasdiez requested a review from mkoeppe September 28, 2023 01:02

tobiasdiez changed the title ~~ci: Only apply fixes for PRs~~ ci: improve things around auto-apply of fixes Sep 28, 2023

reorder commands

0e7c0a4

tobiasdiez added s: needs work p: blocker / 1 labels Sep 28, 2023

First setup git repo, then apply fixes

43194f8

tobiasdiez mentioned this pull request Sep 28, 2023

.github/workflows/build.yml, doc-build.yml: Fix get_ci_fixes #36348

Merged

5 tasks

mkoeppe removed the p: blocker / 1 label Sep 28, 2023

tobiasdiez added s: needs review and removed s: needs work labels Oct 10, 2023

Merge branch 'develop' into fix_get_ci_fixes-1

01678e1

tobiasdiez requested a review from kwankyu October 10, 2023 16:31

mkoeppe mentioned this pull request Oct 10, 2023

CI: Refactor build*.yml through a new script .ci/retrofit-worktree.sh #36442

Merged

5 tasks

tobiasdiez requested a review from dimpase October 20, 2023 15:55

Merge branch 'develop' into fix_get_ci_fixes-1

da5d53d

mkoeppe reviewed Oct 21, 2023

View reviewed changes

.github/workflows/doc-build-pdf.yml Show resolved Hide resolved

mkoeppe reviewed Oct 21, 2023

View reviewed changes

mkoeppe mentioned this pull request Oct 22, 2023

CI build, doc-build: Run containers explicitly, separate jobs for pyright, build, modularized tests, long tests #36498

Merged

5 tasks

mkoeppe mentioned this pull request Oct 22, 2023

CI docbuild: Run containers explicitly with docker run, docker exec #36508

Closed

5 tasks

vbraun force-pushed the develop branch from 883e05f to e349b00 Compare November 12, 2023 16:25

mkoeppe mentioned this pull request Nov 13, 2023

.ci/merge-fixes.sh: Obtain patches via URL, make customizable by repository variable #36686

Merged

5 tasks

Merge branch 'develop' into fix_get_ci_fixes-1

20fb5c3

tobiasdiez added the disputed PR is waiting for community vote, see https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/IgBYUJl33SQ label Dec 23, 2023

mkoeppe added the c: scripts label Feb 9, 2024

vbraun force-pushed the develop branch from eba5e19 to e5f42fa Compare June 3, 2024 22:15

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

ci: improve things around auto-apply of fixes #36349

ci: improve things around auto-apply of fixes #36349

tobiasdiez commented Sep 28, 2023 •

edited

mkoeppe commented Sep 28, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Sep 28, 2023

mkoeppe commented Sep 28, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Sep 28, 2023

mkoeppe commented Sep 28, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Sep 28, 2023

mkoeppe commented Sep 28, 2023

mkoeppe commented Sep 28, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Sep 28, 2023

mkoeppe commented Sep 28, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Sep 28, 2023

mkoeppe commented Oct 10, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Oct 10, 2023

mkoeppe commented Oct 10, 2023 •

edited

mkoeppe commented Oct 10, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Oct 20, 2023

mkoeppe commented Oct 20, 2023

kwankyu commented Oct 20, 2023 •

edited

tobiasdiez commented Oct 21, 2023

mkoeppe commented Oct 21, 2023

mkoeppe commented Oct 21, 2023

mkoeppe Oct 21, 2023

tobiasdiez Oct 22, 2023

mkoeppe Mar 15, 2024

mkoeppe Oct 21, 2023

tobiasdiez Oct 22, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Oct 22, 2023

mkoeppe commented Oct 22, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Oct 22, 2023

mkoeppe commented Oct 22, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Oct 22, 2023

github-actions bot commented Nov 15, 2023

ci: improve things around auto-apply of fixes #36349

Are you sure you want to change the base?

ci: improve things around auto-apply of fixes #36349

Conversation

tobiasdiez commented Sep 28, 2023 • edited

📝 Checklist

⌛ Dependencies

mkoeppe commented Sep 28, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Sep 28, 2023

mkoeppe commented Sep 28, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Sep 28, 2023

mkoeppe commented Sep 28, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Sep 28, 2023

mkoeppe commented Sep 28, 2023

mkoeppe commented Sep 28, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Sep 28, 2023

mkoeppe commented Sep 28, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Sep 28, 2023

mkoeppe commented Oct 10, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Oct 10, 2023

mkoeppe commented Oct 10, 2023 • edited

mkoeppe commented Oct 10, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Oct 20, 2023

mkoeppe commented Oct 20, 2023

kwankyu commented Oct 20, 2023 • edited

tobiasdiez commented Oct 21, 2023

mkoeppe commented Oct 21, 2023

mkoeppe commented Oct 21, 2023

mkoeppe Oct 21, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tobiasdiez Oct 22, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mkoeppe Mar 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mkoeppe Oct 21, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tobiasdiez Oct 22, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tobiasdiez commented Oct 22, 2023

mkoeppe commented Oct 22, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Oct 22, 2023

mkoeppe commented Oct 22, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Oct 22, 2023

github-actions bot commented Nov 15, 2023

tobiasdiez commented Sep 28, 2023 •

edited

mkoeppe commented Oct 10, 2023 •

edited

kwankyu commented Oct 20, 2023 •

edited