Skip to content
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

fix:release wrong #2979

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 18, 2024
Merged

Conversation

chejinge
Copy link
Collaborator

@chejinge chejinge commented Dec 18, 2024

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Updated the macOS version in the release workflow from macOS 12 to macOS 13.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 18, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request updates the GitHub Actions release workflow configuration, specifically changing the macOS build environment from version 12 to version 13. This modification updates the operating system used for building the macOS binary in the release process, ensuring compatibility with the latest macOS runner provided by GitHub Actions.

Changes

File Change Summary
.github/workflows/release.yml Updated macOS runner version from macos-12 to macos-13 in build job

Poem

🐰 A Rabbit's Release Rhyme 🍎

From macOS twelve to thirteen we leap,
A build runner upgrade, smooth and neat
GitHub Actions dance with a new OS beat
Binaries compiled, our workflow complete
Hopping forward with technological zest! 🚀


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the ☢️ Bug Something isn't working label Dec 18, 2024
Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/release.yml (1)

Line range hint 1-106: Consider these workflow improvements

While the workflow is functional, here are some suggested improvements:

  1. Pin the GitHub Actions versions more specifically for better reproducibility:

    • softprops/action-gh-release@v1softprops/action-gh-release@v1.1.0
  2. Add artifact retention period to manage storage:

    • Add retention-days: 5 to upload-artifact steps
  3. Enhance error handling:

    • Add if: failure() steps for error notifications
    • Add timeout-minutes to long-running jobs

Would you like me to provide the specific changes for any of these improvements?

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f852dbd and 200dd37.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • .github/workflows/release.yml (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
.github/workflows/release.yml (2)

Line range hint 13-20: Verify artifact naming consistency

The naming convention for release artifacts appears consistent, but let's verify the implementation in the build script.

✅ Verification successful

Artifact naming convention is correctly implemented

The verification confirms that the artifact naming is consistent and properly implemented:

  • The workflow correctly defines artifact names using the pattern {repo}-{tag}-{platform}-amd64.tar.gz for all platforms:
    • Ubuntu: ${{ github.event.repository.name }}-${{ github.ref_name }}-ubuntu-amd64.tar.gz
    • macOS: ${{ github.event.repository.name }}-${{ github.ref_name }}-macos-amd64.tar.gz
    • Rocky: ${{ github.event.repository.name }}-${{ github.ref_name }}-rocky-amd64.tar.gz
  • The build script (ci/release-build.sh) correctly handles the package name passed from the workflow
  • The release job properly collects and publishes all artifacts using the pattern **/${{ github.event.repository.name }}-*
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify artifact naming consistency across the build script
# Expected results: Consistent naming pattern usage

# Check for artifact naming patterns in the build script
rg -A 2 "tar\.gz|\.sha256sum" "ci/release-build.sh"

# Verify no hardcoded platform names that might conflict
rg "macos-|ubuntu-|rocky-" "ci/release-build.sh"

Length of output: 184


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the release workflow and build script more thoroughly

# First, let's see the complete release workflow
cat .github/workflows/release.yml

# Then, let's examine the build script
cat ci/release-build.sh

# Also check for any other related workflow files
fd workflow .github/workflows --exec cat {}

Length of output: 5055


19-19: Verify macOS binary compatibility

The change from macos-12 to macos-13 is aligned with GitHub Actions' supported runners. However, we should ensure that the built binary maintains compatibility with older macOS versions that your users might be running.

Let's verify the current GitHub Actions runner recommendations and check if there are any known issues:

Consider documenting the minimum supported macOS version in your project's documentation to set clear expectations for users.

✅ Verification successful

Let me gather more information about the build configuration and minimum macOS version requirements.

The previous results showed that:

  1. The build script uses gcc@10 specifically for macOS builds
  2. There's a reported issue about runner compatibility with macOS 10.13, but it's related to the runner's Node.js binary, not our build output
  3. The build process uses standard tools (autoconf, protobuf, llvm) installed via brew

Let's check for any explicit macOS version requirements or deployment targets in the codebase before making the final decision.


Upgrading to macos-13 runner is safe

The change from macos-12 to macos-13 is safe because:

  1. The build script uses standard tools installed via Homebrew and gcc@10 as the compiler
  2. No explicit macOS version constraints or deployment targets are specified in the codebase
  3. The build process doesn't employ any version-specific features or configurations

The binary compatibility is maintained through the use of gcc@10 and standard build tools, which handle backward compatibility well on macOS systems.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check GitHub's documentation for macOS runner versions and any related discussions
# Expected results: Confirmation that macos-13 is a stable, recommended runner

# Check for any existing issues or discussions about macOS runner compatibility
gh search issues "macos-13 runner compatibility" --repo "$GITHUB_REPOSITORY" --json title,url

# Check the build script for any macOS-specific configurations
rg -A 5 "macos|darwin" "ci/release-build.sh"

Length of output: 959


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for any macOS version specifications in CMake files and documentation
rg -i "macos.*version|darwin.*version|osx.*version" --type md --type cmake

# Check for any deployment target or minimum version settings
rg "CMAKE_OSX|MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET" 

# Look for any macOS compatibility notes in documentation
fd -e md -e txt -X grep -i -A 3 "macos.*requirement|system.*requirement"

Length of output: 193

@chejinge chejinge merged commit 1b0990e into OpenAtomFoundation:unstable Dec 18, 2024
12 checks passed
chejinge added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 30, 2024
Co-authored-by: chejinge <chejinge@360.cn>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
☢️ Bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants