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

[mergebot] Add Land Check Troubleshooting Message #82580

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

zengk95
Copy link
Contributor

@zengk95 zengk95 commented Aug 1, 2022

Description

Land checks are new and people can get confused on how to use it. In this, we make it a bit clearer to the user that they can use pytorchbot merge -g or -f to merge it in if they believe that there's infra issues with the land check.

Issue

N/a

Testing

N/a. Lint should be enough.

@pytorch-bot
Copy link

pytorch-bot bot commented Aug 1, 2022

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results here

Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed.

❌ 1 Failures

As of commit c440310:

The following jobs have failed:

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes.

@zengk95 zengk95 marked this pull request as ready for review August 1, 2022 16:54
@zengk95 zengk95 requested a review from a team as a code owner August 1, 2022 16:54
@@ -1238,6 +1238,10 @@ def handle_exception(e: Exception, msg: str = "Merge failed") -> None:
run_url = os.getenv("GH_RUN_URL")
if run_url is not None:
msg += f"\nRaised by {run_url}"
if land_checks:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we should be more descriptive with what merge -g does (and how it's different) and same with merge -f. Maybe we can update our wiki to describe these in more detail and then just link to that wiki here as well.

@zengk95
Copy link
Contributor Author

zengk95 commented Aug 1, 2022

@pytorchbot merge -g

@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

@pytorchbot successfully started a merge job. Check the current status here

@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Merge failed due to Refusing to merge as mandatory check(s) pull failed for rule OSS CI
Raised by https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/actions/runs/2777517269

@zengk95
Copy link
Contributor Author

zengk95 commented Aug 1, 2022

@pytorchbot merge -f "[OTHER] Lint should be enough"

@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

@pytorchbot successfully started a merge job. Check the current status here

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Aug 1, 2022

Hey @zengk95.
You've committed this PR, but it does not have both a 'release notes: ...' and 'topics: ...' label. Please add one of each to the PR. The 'release notes: ...' label should represent the part of PyTorch that this PR changes (fx, autograd, distributed, etc) and the 'topics: ...' label should represent the kind of PR it is (not user facing, new feature, bug fix, perf improvement, etc). The list of valid labels can be found here for the 'release notes: ...' and here for the 'topics: ...'.
For changes that are 'topic: not user facing' there is no need for a release notes label.

facebook-github-bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 3, 2022
Summary:
### Description
Land checks are new and people can get confused on how to use it. In this, we make it a bit clearer to the user that they can use pytorchbot merge -g or -f to merge it in if they believe that there's infra issues with the land check.

### Issue
N/a

### Testing
N/a. Lint should be enough.

Pull Request resolved: #82580
Approved by: https://github.com/huydhn

Test Plan: contbuild & OSS CI, see https://hud.pytorch.org/commit/pytorch/pytorch/c041b2f158b437850a516095b8fbb11a805f96a9

Reviewed By: kit1980

Differential Revision: D38359311

Pulled By: zengk95

fbshipit-source-id: c53559fc5b168c592e74061347b05991dfc53d8d
@ZainRizvi ZainRizvi deleted the landcheck-troubleshooting branch October 28, 2022 17:01
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants