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): Be more permissive during retries in workflow remote execution initialization #15348

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

justinkaseman
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@justinkaseman justinkaseman requested review from a team as code owners November 20, 2024 22:57
@justinkaseman justinkaseman changed the title (fix): Be more permissive during retries about workflow remote execution initialization (fix): Be more permissive during retries in workflow remote execution initialization Nov 20, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

I see you updated files related to core. Please run pnpm changeset in the root directory to add a changeset as well as in the text include at least one of the following tags:

  • #added For any new functionality added.
  • #breaking_change For any functionality that requires manual action for the node to boot.
  • #bugfix For bug fixes.
  • #changed For any change to the existing functionality.
  • #db_update For any feature that introduces updates to database schema.
  • #deprecation_notice For any upcoming deprecation functionality.
  • #internal For changesets that need to be excluded from the final changelog.
  • #nops For any feature that is NOP facing and needs to be in the official Release Notes for the release.
  • #removed For any functionality/config that is removed.
  • #updated For any functionality that is updated.
  • #wip For any change that is not ready yet and external communication about it should be held off till it is feature complete.

🎖️ No JIRA issue number found in: PR title, commit message, or branch name. Please include the issue ID in one of these.

@@ -208,10 +208,11 @@ func (c *client) sendRequest(req *request.ClientRequest) error {
c.lggr.Debugw("executing remote execute capability", "requestID", req.ID())

if _, ok := c.requestIDToCallerRequest[req.ID()]; ok {
return fmt.Errorf("request for ID %s already exists", req.ID())
c.lggr.Debugw("request for ID already exists", "requestID", req.ID())
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

imo easier to read if log and return and fall thru

if _, exists := ....; exists {
log.Debug
return nil
}
c.foo = bar

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fair. I don't have a strong opinion, so I'll change it

krehermann
krehermann previously approved these changes Nov 20, 2024
krehermann
krehermann previously approved these changes Nov 20, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 20, 2024

AER Report: CI Core

aer_workflow , commit , Scheduled Run Frequency , Detect Changes , Clean Go Tidy & Generate , Find New Flaky Tests In Chainlink Project / Get Tests To Run , lint , Core Tests (go_core_tests) , Core Tests (go_core_tests_integration) , Core Tests (go_core_ccip_deployment_tests) , Find New Flaky Tests In Deployment Project , Core Tests (go_core_race_tests) , Core Tests (go_core_fuzz) , Find New Flaky Tests In Chainlink Project / Run Tests , Find New Flaky Tests In Chainlink Project / Report , Flakey Test Detection , SonarQube Scan

1. Test failures encountered: go_core_tests

Source of Error:
Run tests	2024-11-21T02:01:07.8708621Z Encountered test failures.
Run tests	2024-11-21T02:01:07.8709173Z go_core_tests exiting with code 1
Run tests	2024-11-21T02:01:07.8729178Z ##[error]Process completed with exit code 1.

Why: The error indicates that the Go core tests encountered failures during execution. The exit code 1 signifies that at least one test did not pass, causing the job to fail.

Suggested fix: Review the test output logs to identify which specific tests failed and address the underlying issues in the code or test cases. Ensure all tests pass before re-running the action.

Copy link
Contributor

@bolekk bolekk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm afraid this is not enough :(

See my Slack message and the proposed alternative fix: https://github.com/smartcontractkit/chainlink/pull/15352/files

@justinkaseman
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing for @ettec's larger rework

auto-merge was automatically disabled November 22, 2024 18:11

Pull request was closed

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants