Skip to content

don't deny warnings on wasm-atomics CI job #19604

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

Merged

Conversation

mockersf
Copy link
Member

@mockersf mockersf commented Jun 12, 2025

Objective

Solution

  • Don't deny warning, that's not what this job is checking anyway

@mockersf mockersf added the A-Build-System Related to build systems or continuous integration label Jun 12, 2025
@mockersf mockersf requested a review from alice-i-cecile June 12, 2025 21:52
@alice-i-cecile alice-i-cecile added D-Trivial Nice and easy! A great choice to get started with Bevy P-High This is particularly urgent, and deserves immediate attention labels Jun 12, 2025
@alice-i-cecile alice-i-cecile added this pull request to the merge queue Jun 12, 2025
@alice-i-cecile alice-i-cecile added S-Ready-For-Final-Review This PR has been approved by the community. It's ready for a maintainer to consider merging it C-Usability A targeted quality-of-life change that makes Bevy easier to use labels Jun 12, 2025
Merged via the queue into bevyengine:main with commit 2961f44 Jun 12, 2025
43 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-Build-System Related to build systems or continuous integration C-Usability A targeted quality-of-life change that makes Bevy easier to use D-Trivial Nice and easy! A great choice to get started with Bevy P-High This is particularly urgent, and deserves immediate attention S-Ready-For-Final-Review This PR has been approved by the community. It's ready for a maintainer to consider merging it
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

build-wasm-atomics job spuriously fails in CI: function check is never used
2 participants