-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.2k
fix CI step for publishing alternative providers results #13082
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Test Results (MA/MR) - Preflight, Unit22 117 tests 20 379 ✅ 6m 30s ⏱️ Results for commit a04930f. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Test Results - Alternative Providers379 tests 248 ✅ 3m 33s ⏱️ Results for commit 5109396. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Test Results (MA/MR) - Alternative Providers379 tests 248 ✅ 3m 34s ⏱️ Results for commit 5109396. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Test Results (amd64, MA/MR) - Acceptance7 tests 5 ✅ 3m 5s ⏱️ Results for commit a04930f. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Test Results (amd64, MA/MR) - Integration, Bootstrap 5 files 5 suites 2h 21m 59s ⏱️ Results for commit a04930f. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Test Results (amd64) - Integration, Bootstrap 5 files 5 suites 2h 21m 53s ⏱️ Results for commit a04930f. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
LocalStack Community integration with Pro 2 files 2 suites 1h 43m 43s ⏱️ Results for commit 06d7d63. |
bf84a94
to
d452882
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
It does look a bit unreadable now, but that's just how github expression syntax is :)
Hopefully the alternative providers won't scale too much in number :D
@silv-io Agreed, I really don't like it either, we're lacking proper logic to evaluate arrays 😭 I'll also look into the outputs like we've discussed (setting outputs and trying to access them). I'll wait until #13069 is merged to rebased and also add SNS in the list of conditions if I can't make it work with the outputs. I'll re-request your review if I change the logic to use outputs! |
This reverts commit fb530fd.
4ae34c4
to
17a8c54
Compare
Motivation
When adding a new SNS alternative provider with #13069, I've stumbled upon the fact that we did not publish the alternative providers test results, even if some of them were executed. See this comment: #13069 (review)
This is because the
if
condition for it was that all theneeds
jobs would need to be executed and not skipped. I've changed the condition to be that at least one issuccess
orfailure
(so that not all of them are skipped).There is a weird bug in the job
if
check that theneeds.*.result
call will return true for success in theif
check but not if it is in theenv
one. I'm still not sure what it is is picking up, but manually specifying the job results we're looking for, as advised with https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflows-and-actions/expressions#example-matching-an-array-of-strings is now working. Not optimal, but at least it works... 😬Edit: I've went with a second solution based on job output, if the job is skipped it doesn't set the output. This requires us to always properly set the
job_status
output, but it seems like the cleanest way for now. What we need is not properly supported by GitHub Actions out of the box.This discussion is related to how to debug
if
conditions: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/20640Changes
if
check for thePublish Alternative Providers Test Results
for at least one failure or success of the jobs it depends onTODO
Second time, with the new outputs logic: