Skip to content

PR metadata check: few tweaks and wait for the Manifest workflow explicitly #90806

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
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

fabiobaltieri
Copy link
Member

Couple improvements to the python script for pr metadata check, mainly add an explicit wait for the manifest run, hopefully it'll fix the current race condition for good.

Log the PR link and labels, may come in handy for troubleshooting down
the road.

Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri <[email protected]>
@fabiobaltieri fabiobaltieri added DNM This PR should not be merged (Do Not Merge) DNM (manifest) This PR should not be merged (controlled by action-manifest) labels May 29, 2025
@fabiobaltieri fabiobaltieri removed DNM This PR should not be merged (Do Not Merge) DNM (manifest) This PR should not be merged (controlled by action-manifest) labels May 29, 2025
@fabiobaltieri
Copy link
Member Author

fabiobaltieri commented May 29, 2025

This should take care of the #90800 problem. And probably introduce another dozen new ones.

No point spreading the logic around, the python file already has the
data, check it there.

Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri <[email protected]>
Seems like github relabel rerun is susceptible to race conditions and
may not rerun the label check script if the manifest workflow runs at
the same time.

Delay the check to explicitly wait until the currently checked sha had a
successful manifest run.

Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri <[email protected]>
Makes it easier to debug since there's stuff handling race conditions
now.

Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri <[email protected]>

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@pdgendt
Copy link
Collaborator

pdgendt commented May 30, 2025

This does feel fragile, no? Can't we use the GH action dependency mechanism for that? Also won't this do more GH API calls, which we tried to prevent before?

@fabiobaltieri
Copy link
Member Author

fabiobaltieri commented May 30, 2025

This does feel fragile, no? Can't we use the GH action dependency mechanism for that? Also won't this do more GH API calls, which we tried to prevent before?

With workflow_run trigger? possibly? having a hard time wrapping my head as how would that interact with the other triggers (this has to rerun in other events) and honestly not quite in the mood of taking chances.

What specifically do you find fragile about it? At least when it'll go wrong I can log stuff and figure what happened.

As for the API calls, I think that ship has sailed. Or rather that kite has flown.

@fabiobaltieri fabiobaltieri added area: Input Input Subsystem and Drivers and removed area: Input Input Subsystem and Drivers labels Jun 3, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants