Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Aug 29, 2023. It is now read-only.

fix: fix js test and release workflow #495

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 15, 2023
Merged

fix: fix js test and release workflow #495

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 15, 2023

Conversation

achingbrain
Copy link
Contributor

@achingbrain achingbrain commented Mar 15, 2023

Fixes yaml syntax errors introduced in #487

The automerge jobs for this failed yet the PRs were still merged.

Fixes yaml syntax errors.

The automerge jobs for this [failed](https://github.com/ipfs/helia-ipns/actions/runs/4424888455)
yet the [PRs were still merged](ipfs/helia-ipns#9).
@achingbrain achingbrain requested a review from a team as a code owner March 15, 2023 11:10
@achingbrain
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm going to merge this because everything's on fire. @galargh the auto-merge job should probably not succeed if the actions it starts fail.

@achingbrain achingbrain merged commit 88629c9 into master Mar 15, 2023
@achingbrain achingbrain deleted the fix-js-build branch March 15, 2023 11:16
@galargh
Copy link
Contributor

galargh commented Mar 15, 2023

I'm going to merge this because everything's on fire. @galargh the auto-merge job should probably not succeed if the actions it starts fail.

I want to get rid of per-repo automerge workflows altogether - #477

@achingbrain
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sounds good, though I'm still confused as to why the change was merged when the sync builds failed.

@galargh
Copy link
Contributor

galargh commented Mar 15, 2023

It's because it didn't really fail. Automerge waits for all the checks running on a PR to finish and then merges the PR if all of them passed or were skipped. In this case, there were no checks on the PR because we broke the underlying workflow YML. If the YML is broken, GitHub has no idea what the workflow is supposed to do. In particular, it doesn't know that the YML was supposed to define checks for a PR.

@galargh
Copy link
Contributor

galargh commented Mar 15, 2023

Sorry I missed the issue in the review. I read through the comments too quickly and thought - #487 (comment) - was mentioning that we did try out this workflow in some repo already.

@achingbrain
Copy link
Contributor Author

It's because it didn't really fail.

That's interesting, because the build status is "Failure", maybe this is another status it should check for?

@galargh
Copy link
Contributor

galargh commented Mar 15, 2023

Yes, but sadly it's not happening in the context of the PR. However, now that I think of it, it is associated with a specific commit and GitHub is perfectly happy attaching checks from worklow runs triggered on commit pushes to PRs. Following that logic, it should also associate a faulty workflow definition from a commit with a PR that the commit is a part of. I'm going to raise this with Github support.

Screenshot 2023-03-15 at 13 58 37

@galargh
Copy link
Contributor

galargh commented Mar 15, 2023

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants