shuke987 commented on code in PR #66464:
URL: https://github.com/apache/doris/pull/66464#discussion_r3718363014


##########
.github/workflows/code-review-runner.yml:
##########
@@ -252,13 +256,9 @@ jobs:
 
             auth_object="$candidate"
             break
-          done < <(printf '%s\n' \
-            'oss://doris-community-ci/codex/auth.json.1' \
-            'oss://doris-community-ci/codex/auth.json.2' \
-            'oss://doris-community-ci/codex/auth.json.3' \
-            'oss://doris-community-ci/codex/auth.json.4' \
-            'oss://doris-community-ci/codex/auth.json.5' \
-            | shuf)
+          done < <(
+            awk '$0 ~ 
/^oss:\/\/doris-community-ci\/codex\/auth\.json\.[0-9]+$/ { print }' 
"$auth_listing" | shuf
+          )
 
           if [ -z "$auth_object" ]; then
             retry_at="$(date -u -d "@$earliest_retry_after_epoch" 
+%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"

Review Comment:
   [P2] Handle an empty or failed auth discovery explicitly
   
   This branch now also covers the new case where `ossutil ls` succeeds but the 
filter yields no numbered objects. In that case `earliest_retry_after_epoch` is 
still empty, so `date -d "@"` fails under the GitHub runner default `bash -e` 
before `failure_reason` is written. Likewise, an `ossutil ls` error exits 
before producing an auth-specific reason. The later `always()` failure handler 
then misreports this as review-context preparation failure. Please guard the 
list command and reject an empty filtered candidate file with distinct 
`failure_reason` values before entering the quota-only branch.



-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to