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

chore(ci): breakup GH test.yml #8027

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
May 21, 2024
Merged

chore(ci): breakup GH test.yml #8027

merged 9 commits into from
May 21, 2024

Conversation

mehulkar
Copy link
Contributor

@mehulkar mehulkar commented Apr 23, 2024

turbopack and turborepo tests are often blocking each other and
there is no good reason to keep them all in one workflow. This
PR separates them. Since linting and JS packages are not cleanly
separated between the projects, they get their own workflows as well

Closes TURBO-2868

Copy link

vercel bot commented Apr 23, 2024

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
examples-basic-web ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback May 21, 2024 4:07pm
examples-designsystem-docs ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback May 21, 2024 4:07pm
examples-gatsby-web ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback May 21, 2024 4:07pm
examples-kitchensink-blog ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback May 21, 2024 4:07pm
examples-native-web ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback May 21, 2024 4:07pm
examples-nonmonorepo ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback May 21, 2024 4:07pm
examples-svelte-web ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback May 21, 2024 4:07pm
examples-tailwind-web ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback May 21, 2024 4:07pm
examples-vite-web ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback May 21, 2024 4:07pm
rust-docs ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback May 21, 2024 4:07pm

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Apr 23, 2024

🟢 Turbopack Benchmark CI successful 🟢

Thanks

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Apr 23, 2024

⚠️ This change may fail to build next-swc.

Logs

error: failed to select a version for `lightningcss`.
    ... required by package `turbopack-ecmascript-plugins v0.1.0 (https://github.com/vercel/turbo?rev=585955dbc87c1017055a6e489ecba4c074636652#2af6b12b)`
    ... which satisfies git dependency `turbopack-ecmascript-plugins` of package `turbopack-binding v0.1.0 (https://github.com/vercel/turbo?rev=585955dbc87c1017055a6e489ecba4c074636652#2af6b12b)`
    ... which satisfies git dependency `turbopack-binding` (locked to 0.1.0) of package `next-swc-napi v0.0.0 (/root/actions-runner/_work/turbo/turbo/packages/next-swc/crates/napi)`
versions that meet the requirements `^1.0.0-alpha.56` are: 1.0.0-alpha.56

all possible versions conflict with previously selected packages.

  previously selected package `lightningcss v1.0.0-alpha.55`
    ... which satisfies dependency `lightningcss = "^1.0.0-alpha.54"` (locked to 1.0.0-alpha.55) of package `lightningcss-napi v0.1.0`
    ... which satisfies dependency `lightningcss-napi = "^0.1.0"` (locked to 0.1.0) of package `next-swc-napi v0.0.0 (/root/actions-runner/_work/turbo/turbo/packages/next-swc/crates/napi)`

failed to select a version for `lightningcss` which could resolve this conflict

See job summary for details

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Apr 23, 2024

⚠️ CI failed ⚠️

The following steps have failed in CI:

  • Turbopack Rust tests (mac/win, non-blocking)
  • Turbopack Rust benchmark tests (linux)
  • Turbopack Rust benchmark tests (mac/win, non-blocking)

See workflow summary for details

turbopack and turborepo tests are often blocking each other and
there is no good reason to keep them all in one workflow. This
PR separates them. Since linting and JS packages are not cleanly
separated between the projects, they get their own workflows as well
.github/workflows/lint.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@tknickman tknickman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How will this solve the required checks issue that caused us to merge these into one action last time?

@mehulkar
Copy link
Contributor Author

How will this solve the required checks issue that caused us to merge these into one action last time?

I think the required check thing is handled by the "Determine Jobs" job in each one. IIUC, any job that is a required check and only runs on some paths needs this handling. All the broken up workflows are duplicating that logic, so there's a final "done" step in each.

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.

3 participants