adding breaking change label to container #1809
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1809 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 57.93% 50.35% -7.58%
==========================================
Files 50 70 +20
Lines 3119 4180 +1061
==========================================
+ Hits 1807 2105 +298
- Misses 1154 1843 +689
- Partials 158 232 +74 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
javanlacerda
force-pushed
the
javan.breaking-change-label
branch
2 times, most recently
from
4a65cb0
to
831689d
Compare
Signed-off-by: Javan lacerda <javanlacerda@google.com>
javanlacerda
force-pushed
the
javan.breaking-change-label
branch
from
831689d
to
ddad4b2
Compare
| run: | | ||
| FORMATED_LABELS="--image-label commit-hash=$GITHUB_SHA" | ||
|
|
||
| BRANCH_NUMBER=$(gh pr list --state all --search "sha:$GITHUB_SHA" --label "breaking-change" | awk '{print $1}') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we check if we need to create a PAT for this or if the default token is fine? We sometimes hit rate limits when querying GitHub. I’d rather not manage another token but just wanna check.
Cc @cpanato
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One other idea is to change this to fire on PR closure, like what’s documented in https://stackoverflow.com/questions/71523153/github-actions-on-pull-request-merged-with-specific-labels
You could then checkout from HEAD based on the git sha.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Eh, that might not work - commit shas will differ after being squashed to merge to HEAD.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it should be fine as I tested this same action in my fork and it worked properly. https://github.com/javanlacerda/fulcio/actions/runs/10997017464/job/30531560844. Just hadn't the authorization to push the image, what is expected.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i see this and will reply tomorrow (25/sept/2024) sorry !
| - name: container | ||
| run: KO_PREFIX=gcr.io/projectsigstore/fulcio/ci/fulcio make sign-keyless-ci | ||
| run: | | ||
| echo "Formated Label: ${{ steps.labels.outputs.FORMATED_LABELS }}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could tackle this in the next PR, but I think we also need to handle labeling containers with merge times such that we can sort them and deploy only the latest commit. Otherwise if we merge two PRs at the same time, and the earlier GitHub action completes after the later GitHub action, then we would deploy an older commit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be good. but we can also look to the repo's commit history and check the order, right?
| run: | | ||
| FORMATED_LABELS="--image-label commit-hash=$GITHUB_SHA" | ||
|
|
||
| BRANCH_NUMBER=$(gh pr list --state all --search "sha:$GITHUB_SHA" --label "breaking-change" | awk '{print $1}') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thinking about how this will be used in PGI: Have you thought about how we will handle if multiple PRs are merged in a short period with only one labeled as a breaking change? Are we going to search back through all containers built after the last deployment?
Summary
It checks and adds the
breaking-changelabel to the container that is created by thebuild-containeraction.It also adds a label with the
commit-hashto the container.Release Note
Documentation