build: fix update-wpt workflow #57468
Conversation
|
Review requested:
|
nodejs-github-bot
added
the
meta
|
Fast-track has been requested by @anonrig. Please 👍 to approve. |
anonrig
added
the
author ready
JonasBa
force-pushed
the
jb/workflows/wpt-update-workflow
branch
from
3b04d4a to
9bbff4a
Compare
|
This removes the ability to trigger the job manually for subsystems that we don't want automation for all the time though. Just changing the branch pattern to have wpt at the end would be enough, wouldn't it? |
You lost me there. Would you mind explaining? Current workflow runs all subsystems on every day, since the default value is all items. |
But it allows workflow_dispatch with any subsystem when we need it. 
|
|
Yes, that's true. I forgot about this. Can we still allow such changes but within the combination of the dropdown? |
no, there is no freeform input option for 'type: choice', if there was the action would already be using it from when we introduced it. |
|
@JonasBa would you mind reverting everything except the branch name change? |
|
@JonasBa big props for finding the culprit btw! much appreciated |
|
@panva Ahhh, got it! I did not know that that is a requirement, but that makes sense. I will leave a comment for future reference as to why having the string input is preferable and revert the other changes, thanks for reviewing this! |
JonasBa
force-pushed
the
jb/workflows/wpt-update-workflow
branch
from
9bbff4a to
d19b293
Compare
JonasBa
force-pushed
the
jb/workflows/wpt-update-workflow
branch
from
d19b293 to
029eb6e
Compare
panva
added
the
commit-queue
nodejs-github-bot
removed
the
commit-queue
|
Landed in 26c4851 |
PR-URL: #57468 Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <yagiz@nizipli.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #57468 Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <yagiz@nizipli.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #57468 Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <yagiz@nizipli.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs#57468 Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <yagiz@nizipli.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #57468 Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <yagiz@nizipli.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #57468 Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <yagiz@nizipli.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #57468 Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <yagiz@nizipli.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #57468 Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <yagiz@nizipli.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #57468 Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <yagiz@nizipli.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #57468 Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <yagiz@nizipli.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>
There is a bug in
create-or-updateaction here which is causing url subsystem updates to mistakenly update the wrong PR (as seen in #57368). The match being performed in that API call is not an exact match, which causes inference in L158 to pick up the wrong PR.