Skip to content

Conversation

mhucka
Copy link
Contributor

@mhucka mhucka commented Apr 2, 2025

The previous GitHub Actions used as the labeling action was buggy. Switching to a different action that looks more promising.

The previous labeler was buggy and poorly written.
@mhucka mhucka marked this pull request as ready for review April 2, 2025 22:42
@mhucka mhucka requested review from a team and vtomole as code owners April 2, 2025 22:42
@mhucka mhucka requested a review from dstrain115 April 2, 2025 22:42
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 2, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.14%. Comparing base (11f0f51) to head (9d7db22).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7219   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.14%   98.14%           
=======================================
  Files        1104     1104           
  Lines       96352    96352           
=======================================
  Hits        94569    94569           
  Misses       1783     1783           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Copy link
Collaborator

@pavoljuhas pavoljuhas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM assuming permissions will start working when this is merged.

PS: Please see the inline suggestion.

@mhucka mhucka force-pushed the mh-change-pr-labeler-action branch from 4ad7ce3 to c758f16 Compare April 2, 2025 23:56
@mhucka
Copy link
Contributor Author

mhucka commented Apr 3, 2025

LGTM assuming permissions will start working when this is merged.

PS: Please see the inline suggestion.

Thanks for the excellent suggested chanages.

I still don't know if the workflow permissions will work after merging. There is a restriction with token permissions in PRs from forks, so the current failures may be due to that. Unfortunately, if there's still a different permission problem, it's being masked by this failure and we won't know until the workflow is on the main branch.

(I guess the right way to do it would have been to use a branch in the Cirq repo itself, instead of in a fork.)

mhucka added 3 commits April 2, 2025 17:17
There is no way to get the error messages from the labeler action. We
need to get the output if we want to note that something failed
without failing the whole workflow. Thankfully, the action can be
invoked more directly using `podman`, and it's not hard to revise the
workflow to capture the output and write it as an annotation on the
summary page.
@mhucka mhucka force-pushed the mh-change-pr-labeler-action branch from f04262e to c213bd5 Compare April 3, 2025 05:07
@mhucka mhucka added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 3, 2025
Merged via the queue into quantumlib:main with commit 17ddcdf Apr 3, 2025
39 checks passed
@mhucka mhucka deleted the mh-change-pr-labeler-action branch April 3, 2025 06:02
@mhucka mhucka changed the title Use a different action for size labeler GHA Use a different GitHub Actions action for the PR size-labeler workflow Apr 8, 2025
BichengYing pushed a commit to BichengYing/Cirq that referenced this pull request Jun 20, 2025
* Use a different action for size labeler GHA

The previous labeler was buggy and poorly written.

* Need set permissions for id-token

* Update .github/pr-size-labels.yaml

Co-authored-by: Pavol Juhas <[email protected]>

* Widen the scope of excluded package-lock.json files

* Improve explanation of how the settings work

* Don't fail the workflow if labeling fails

* Invoke the labeler program directly

There is no way to get the error messages from the labeler action. We
need to get the output if we want to note that something failed
without failing the whole workflow. Thankfully, the action can be
invoked more directly using `podman`, and it's not hard to revise the
workflow to capture the output and write it as an annotation on the
summary page.

* Clarify comments some more

---------

Co-authored-by: Pavol Juhas <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants