Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Make matrix run all cases of the python-deps tests - #482
Conversation
aeisenberg
commented
May 7, 2021
26 jobs does seem large, but they are quite fast. Two suggestions (not sure if they will work):
|
adityasharad
commented
May 7, 2021
The includes in the original matrix weren't working because they didn't mention |
adityasharad
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good. The number of matrixed jobs is ok, since these aren't in the same workflow as the other PR checks. Some minor suggestions for factoring out and quoting matrix values via environment variables.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
robertbrignull
commented
May 10, 2021
I've moved the uses of the matrix vars to environment variables for safety like you suggested. Seems to be working. |
robertbrignull
commented
May 10, 2021
Knew I shouldn't have posted that. I forgot the windows version runs with powershell. Hopefully that's got it now. |
adityasharad
commented
May 10, 2021
PowerShell env vars get me every time! |
robertbrignull
commented
May 10, 2021
Ugh, that's annoying. So it's changed from So if the rules were updated that would allow this to pass but would then cause problems for all other open PRs. Probably we'll need to just update the rules and merge this PR immediately and deal with any fallout. Or temporarily remove the branch protection rules for these checks are reintroduce them after a period. |
adityasharad
commented
May 10, 2021
I've removed those checks from the required list for now, and will reenable them once we merge this PR. At that point all open PRs will need to update from main anyway, so there shouldn't be much fallout from enabling the new checks. |
The python-dep tests didn't appear to be running on the cases that were intended. I don't think the use of
includewas correct, or possibly there might be a bug in how it's being parsed / handled. Either way I'm pretty sure it's not how that feature was intended to be used. I'm going off off the information at https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#example-including-additional-values-into-combinationsThis PR removes the use of
includein favour of a more standard matrix, though this did require splitting one job up into two.If this works then it means we'll now be running 26 jobs. So another question is is it necessary to run this many variations?
Merge / deployment checklist