It was indeed quite annoying. A better solution is in place now (Just merged it). You will see Build Image steps with link as "checks" if you need them and in case "Build Image" fails, the bot will post a comment with link where you will be able to find out the reason.
J. On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:58 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > OK. I found a better solution :) . PR is coming :). > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:21 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> Based on comments of people and questions asked at Slack, I've added a >> few improvements to t our optimized CI builds but I would like to ask for >> help/opinion. >> >> 1) I've fixed a problem where we were building slightly different build >> than the "merged commit" in PR. Github performs a merge of your change with >> the master before running the CI build and we were (so far) using the >> original commit. This caused a few strange issues documented here: >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10471, this should be gone now. >> >> 2) When your PR gets canceled, you should have a comment in the PR why >> the job gets canceled. It might not yet always work - I will observe and >> fix any teething issues there. >> >> 3) For security reasons, we have a separate "worflow_run" to build the >> images needed during the tests and it was not obvious which run it is (it's >> missing feature in GitHub to link the separate run to the PR). Right now I >> started to add comments to PR to link to that run: >> >> "The CI and PROD Docker Images for the build are prepared in a separate >> "Build Image" >> workflow, that you will not see in the list of checks (you will see "Wait >> for images" jobs instead). >> >> You can check the status of those images in The workflow run >> <https://github.com/apache/airflow/actions/runs/288863135>" >> >> It is mildly annoying to get such a comment every time you submit a PR, >> so I am not 100% sure if we should keep it. It is helpful to link between >> the image building workflow and the PR though. >> >> Question: Should we keep it? Is it too annoying? Or maybe someone has an >> idea what we could do instead? >> >> J. >> >> >> -- >> >> Jarek Potiuk >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer >> >> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >> >> > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
