Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork32k
GH-105879: Note exec/eval keyword change in What's New#121831
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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
Previously, those flags would sometimes end up having empty stringvalues which tends to break evaluating them as JSON. This patch adds`false` fallbacks to all such outputs.This allows feeding them to `fromJSON()` without a fear of themcausing surprising internal behaviors in the GitHub Actions CI/CDworkflows platform itself [[1]]. The behavior observed was thatsome skipped jobs wouldn't show up in the workflow sidebar view atall, would display in the graph view as `Waiting for pending jobs`and in the `${{ needs }}` context, they would have a`result: failure` entry.This should help make PRs likepython#121831 mergeable again.[1]:python#121766 (comment)Previously, those flags would sometimes end up having empty stringvalues which tends to break evaluating them as JSON. This patch adds`false` fallbacks to all such outputs.This allows feeding them to `fromJSON()` without a fear of themcausing surprising internal behaviors in the GitHub Actions CI/CDworkflows platform itself [[1]]. The behavior observed was thatsome skipped jobs wouldn't show up in the workflow sidebar view atall, would display in the graph view as `Waiting for pending jobs`and in the `${{ needs }}` context, they would have a`result: failure` entry [[2]].This should help make PRs likepython#121831 mergeable again.[1]:python#121766 (comment)[2]:https://github.com/python/cpython/actions/runs/9950331379/job/27501637459?pr=121831#step:2:244Previously, those flags would sometimes end up having empty stringvalues, which tends to break evaluating them as JSON. This patch adds`false` fallbacks to all such outputs.This allows feeding them to `fromJSON()` without a fear of themcausing surprising internal behaviors in the GitHub Actions CI/CDworkflows platform itself [[1]]. The behavior observed was thatsome skipped jobs wouldn't show up in the workflow sidebar view atall, would display in the graph view as `Waiting for pending jobs`and in the `${{ needs }}` context, they would have a`result: failure` entry [[2]].This should help make PRs likepython#121831 mergeable again.[1]:python#121766 (comment)[2]:https://github.com/python/cpython/actions/runs/9950331379/job/27501637459?pr=121831#step:2:244Previously, those flags would sometimes end up having empty stringvalues, which tends to break evaluating them as JSON. This patch adds`false` fallbacks to all such outputs.This allows feeding them to `fromJSON()` without a fear of themcausing surprising internal behaviors in the GitHub Actions CI/CDworkflows platform itself [[1]]. The behavior observed was thatsome skipped jobs wouldn't show up in the workflow sidebar view atall, would display in the graph view as `Waiting for pending jobs`and in the `${{ needs }}` context, they would have a`result: failure` entry [[2]].This should help make PRs likepython#121831 mergeable again.[1]:python#121766 (comment)[2]:https://github.com/python/cpython/actions/runs/9950331379/job/27501637459?pr=121831#step:2:244Previously, those flags would sometimes end up having empty stringvalues, which tends to break evaluating them as JSON. This patch adds`false` fallbacks to all such outputs.This allows feeding them to `fromJSON()` without a fear of themcausing surprising internal behaviors in the GitHub Actions CI/CDworkflows platform itself [[1]]. The behavior observed was thatsome skipped jobs wouldn't show up in the workflow sidebar view atall, would display in the graph view as `Waiting for pending jobs`and in the `${{ needs }}` context, they would have a`result: failure` entry [[2]].This should help make PRs likepython#121831 mergeable again.[1]:python#121766 (comment)[2]:https://github.com/python/cpython/actions/runs/9950331379/job/27501637459?pr=121831#step:2:244cb46041 to101ca8bCompareRebased to check if#121848 fixes the CI. |
🤞 |
At least the name of the skipped Windows job is still borked. "Tests / Windows ${{ ((fromJSON(matrix.free-threading) && '(free-threading)') || '') }} (pull_requ" |
d7a099d intopython:mainUh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Thanks@ncoghlan for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.13. |
GH-121852 is a backport of this pull request to the3.13 branch. |
That's expected. GHA doesn't evaluate skipped matrices, and that would've evaluated to two different names, not one. That's how GHA works. But in general, you don't need to look into those skipped entries as the ones that are of interest to you are prominently marked as red. |
@ambv a workaround would be to use a static |
Though, there might be other limitations with this (some sort of a |
@ambv if you still want the job names to be rendered differently — let me know, and I can come up with alternative options. |
OK, thanks! Let's see how it looks for a while and we'll decide if it's still bothering me later. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
📚 Documentation preview 📚:https://cpython-previews--121831.org.readthedocs.build/