-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 255
Fix run watch with short SHA #1518
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
Open
schurchleycci
wants to merge
6
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
fix/run-watch-sha
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a2acd56
Use go-git to expand short SHAs in run watch
schurchleycci 14429e3
Fail fast when short SHA cannot be resolved locally
schurchleycci 6f14504
Address review feedback on run watch SHA handling
schurchleycci 9b5a7c0
Address review feedback on short-SHA error messaging and test coverage
schurchleycci 8512b7f
Assert on rendered error message in short-SHA acceptance test
schurchleycci 4c0c740
Validate SHA format in run watch and make ExpandSHA testable without …
schurchleycci File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could the short-SHA problem be fixed more simply by doing a client-side prefix match on the SHA returned by the API, rather than expanding locally via go-git? Something like
strings.HasPrefix(pipeline.GitRevision, sha)instead of a server-side exact filter. That would remove the local git repo dependency entirely — no new error sentinels, noos.Chdirin tests, works in shallow clones and CI environments without access to the repo.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Possibly! If I'm understanding correctly, the drawback of that approach would be if the run you're looking for isn't in the first page of runs returned, the client side check would return with nothing even though the run does exist (unless we keep paging, which doesn't seem great). I can keep poking at this if you feel strongly about the approach!
Regardless, I did a bit of cleanup on the error sentinels (removing
ErrSHANotHex) and the tests (removing the need foros.Chdir).