Pin CI to Python 3.9.18 specifically #19783
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
It can't hurt to merge this one as well though? |
benjyw
approved these changes
Sep 7, 2023
huonw
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 7, 2023
This fixes #19781 by ensuring the engine hash (as computed by calculate_engine_hash.sh) only uses the implementation, major version and minor version, not the patch version (e.g. `cpython 3 9` instead of `Python 3.9.17`. Before this, the patch version could differ between runners on CI, and that would change the engine hash, leading to jobs attempting to rebuild the engine. This is motivated by the assumption that the engine only depends on the CPython ABI version, which is the same for all patch versions, and thus having the hash change based on the patch version is unnecessary. GitHub seems to upgrade the Python versions across runners in phases, meaning `actions/setup-python` with a version specifier of `3.9` will sometimes be 3.9.17, and sometimes 3.9.18. When the the engine is built with one version, and then a test job has a different version, the test job would notice the mismatch in engine hash and start rebuilding the Rust engine. See #19780 for verification of this. This explains why CI has been failing inconsistently: sometimes we get lucky and all jobs run with the same Python version, but often we don't. This is one approach to fixing #19781, that's probably better than #19783. (Only one of this and #19783 needs to merge.)
WorkerPants
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 7, 2023
This fixes #19781 by ensuring the engine hash (as computed by calculate_engine_hash.sh) only uses the implementation, major version and minor version, not the patch version (e.g. `cpython 3 9` instead of `Python 3.9.17`. Before this, the patch version could differ between runners on CI, and that would change the engine hash, leading to jobs attempting to rebuild the engine. This is motivated by the assumption that the engine only depends on the CPython ABI version, which is the same for all patch versions, and thus having the hash change based on the patch version is unnecessary. GitHub seems to upgrade the Python versions across runners in phases, meaning `actions/setup-python` with a version specifier of `3.9` will sometimes be 3.9.17, and sometimes 3.9.18. When the the engine is built with one version, and then a test job has a different version, the test job would notice the mismatch in engine hash and start rebuilding the Rust engine. See #19780 for verification of this. This explains why CI has been failing inconsistently: sometimes we get lucky and all jobs run with the same Python version, but often we don't. This is one approach to fixing #19781, that's probably better than #19783. (Only one of this and #19783 needs to merge.)
WorkerPants
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 7, 2023
This fixes #19781 by ensuring the engine hash (as computed by calculate_engine_hash.sh) only uses the implementation, major version and minor version, not the patch version (e.g. `cpython 3 9` instead of `Python 3.9.17`. Before this, the patch version could differ between runners on CI, and that would change the engine hash, leading to jobs attempting to rebuild the engine. This is motivated by the assumption that the engine only depends on the CPython ABI version, which is the same for all patch versions, and thus having the hash change based on the patch version is unnecessary. GitHub seems to upgrade the Python versions across runners in phases, meaning `actions/setup-python` with a version specifier of `3.9` will sometimes be 3.9.17, and sometimes 3.9.18. When the the engine is built with one version, and then a test job has a different version, the test job would notice the mismatch in engine hash and start rebuilding the Rust engine. See #19780 for verification of this. This explains why CI has been failing inconsistently: sometimes we get lucky and all jobs run with the same Python version, but often we don't. This is one approach to fixing #19781, that's probably better than #19783. (Only one of this and #19783 needs to merge.)
WorkerPants
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 7, 2023
This fixes #19781 by ensuring the engine hash (as computed by calculate_engine_hash.sh) only uses the implementation, major version and minor version, not the patch version (e.g. `cpython 3 9` instead of `Python 3.9.17`. Before this, the patch version could differ between runners on CI, and that would change the engine hash, leading to jobs attempting to rebuild the engine. This is motivated by the assumption that the engine only depends on the CPython ABI version, which is the same for all patch versions, and thus having the hash change based on the patch version is unnecessary. GitHub seems to upgrade the Python versions across runners in phases, meaning `actions/setup-python` with a version specifier of `3.9` will sometimes be 3.9.17, and sometimes 3.9.18. When the the engine is built with one version, and then a test job has a different version, the test job would notice the mismatch in engine hash and start rebuilding the Rust engine. See #19780 for verification of this. This explains why CI has been failing inconsistently: sometimes we get lucky and all jobs run with the same Python version, but often we don't. This is one approach to fixing #19781, that's probably better than #19783. (Only one of this and #19783 needs to merge.)
This was referenced Sep 7, 2023
|
The only reason not to would be the specific comment (originally from #11866) about not specifying patch versions, in order to get the latest. |
huonw
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 7, 2023
…9799) This fixes #19781 by ensuring the engine hash (as computed by calculate_engine_hash.sh) only uses the implementation, major version and minor version, not the patch version (e.g. `cpython 3 9` instead of `Python 3.9.17`. Before this, the patch version could differ between runners on CI, and that would change the engine hash, leading to jobs attempting to rebuild the engine. This is motivated by the assumption that the engine only depends on the CPython ABI version, which is the same for all patch versions, and thus having the hash change based on the patch version is unnecessary. GitHub seems to upgrade the Python versions across runners in phases, meaning `actions/setup-python` with a version specifier of `3.9` will sometimes be 3.9.17, and sometimes 3.9.18. When the the engine is built with one version, and then a test job has a different version, the test job would notice the mismatch in engine hash and start rebuilding the Rust engine. See #19780 for verification of this. This explains why CI has been failing inconsistently: sometimes we get lucky and all jobs run with the same Python version, but often we don't. This is one approach to fixing #19781, that's probably better than #19783. (Only one of this and #19783 needs to merge.) Co-authored-by: Huon Wilson <huon@exoflare.io>
huonw
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 8, 2023
…9801) This fixes #19781 by ensuring the engine hash (as computed by calculate_engine_hash.sh) only uses the implementation, major version and minor version, not the patch version (e.g. `cpython 3 9` instead of `Python 3.9.17`. Before this, the patch version could differ between runners on CI, and that would change the engine hash, leading to jobs attempting to rebuild the engine. This is motivated by the assumption that the engine only depends on the CPython ABI version, which is the same for all patch versions, and thus having the hash change based on the patch version is unnecessary. GitHub seems to upgrade the Python versions across runners in phases, meaning `actions/setup-python` with a version specifier of `3.9` will sometimes be 3.9.17, and sometimes 3.9.18. When the the engine is built with one version, and then a test job has a different version, the test job would notice the mismatch in engine hash and start rebuilding the Rust engine. See #19780 for verification of this. This explains why CI has been failing inconsistently: sometimes we get lucky and all jobs run with the same Python version, but often we don't. This is one approach to fixing #19781, that's probably better than #19783. (Only one of this and #19783 needs to merge.) Co-authored-by: Huon Wilson <huon@exoflare.io>
huonw
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 8, 2023
…9800) This fixes #19781 by ensuring the engine hash (as computed by calculate_engine_hash.sh) only uses the implementation, major version and minor version, not the patch version (e.g. `cpython 3 9` instead of `Python 3.9.17`. Before this, the patch version could differ between runners on CI, and that would change the engine hash, leading to jobs attempting to rebuild the engine. This is motivated by the assumption that the engine only depends on the CPython ABI version, which is the same for all patch versions, and thus having the hash change based on the patch version is unnecessary. GitHub seems to upgrade the Python versions across runners in phases, meaning `actions/setup-python` with a version specifier of `3.9` will sometimes be 3.9.17, and sometimes 3.9.18. When the the engine is built with one version, and then a test job has a different version, the test job would notice the mismatch in engine hash and start rebuilding the Rust engine. See #19780 for verification of this. This explains why CI has been failing inconsistently: sometimes we get lucky and all jobs run with the same Python version, but often we don't. This is one approach to fixing #19781, that's probably better than #19783. (Only one of this and #19783 needs to merge.) Co-authored-by: Huon Wilson <huon@exoflare.io>
|
Do we want latest though? Do we care? Wouldn't patch versions of 3.9 be ABI compatible? |
|
Yeah, ABI compatibility is why we thought #19784 (now merged) was the better fix. Are you suggesting we should or shouldn't merge this one? |
|
Ah I get it now. Yeah I think either is fine. When we starting using PBS to provide Python we'll end up with a solution like this one (pinned patch). But either works. I agree the other fix is likely the better one. |
|
Given the other fix has been working fine, I feel no particular inclination to get this in (just becomes yet another thing to remember to update occasionally). So I'm going to close, but someone else can reopen/champion it in if they want. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This fixes #19781 by pinning CI to use exactly 3.9.18, not just 3.9 in general, so that all jobs use the same patch version. Before this, the patch version could differ, and that would change the engine hash (as computed by
calculate_engine_hash.sh), leading to jobs attempting to rebuild the engine.GitHub seems to upgrade the Python versions across runners in phases, meaning
actions/setup-pythonwith a version specifier of3.9will sometimes be 3.9.17, and sometimes 3.9.18. When the the engine is built with one version, and then a test job has a different version, the test job would notice the mismatch in engine hash and start rebuilding the Rust engine. See #19780 for verification of this.This explains why CI has been failing inconsistently: sometimes we get lucky and all jobs run with the same Python version, but often we don't.
This is one approach to fixing #19781. #19784 is probably a better approach, if it is valid.
(Only one of this and #19784 needs to merge.)