[PATCH 0/2] ci: make the new GitHub workflow logic more defensive

[PATCH 0/2] ci: make the new GitHub workflow logic more defensive

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

Phil just reported that the check I added failed miserably
[https://github.com/phil-blain/git/runs/1238660958] in their fork, and the 
entire run would be abandoned. That's totally unintended, and was caused by
a different metadata format for older recorded runs.

Let's work around this particular issue, and then make the entire check a
lot more robust.

This patch series is based on js/ci-ghwf-dedup-tests.

Johannes Schindelin (2):
  ci: work around old records of GitHub runs
  ci: make the "skip-if-redundant" check more defensive

 .github/workflows/main.yml | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)


base-commit: 4463ce75b7eea47f9b484b05957def655d3f46d5
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-748%2Fdscho%2Fci-ghwf-dedup-tests-defensive-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-748/dscho/ci-ghwf-dedup-tests-defensive-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/748
-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH 1/2] ci: work around old records of GitHub runs

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

Apparently older GitHub runs at least _sometimes_ lack information about
the `head_commit` (and therefore the `ci-config` check will fail with
"TypeError: Cannot read property 'tree_id' of null") in the check added
in 7d78d5fc1a9 (ci: skip GitHub workflow runs for already-tested
commits/trees, 2020-10-08).

Let's work around this by adding a defensive condition.

Reported-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
 .github/workflows/main.yml | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/.github/workflows/main.yml b/.github/workflows/main.yml
index 0a9acb6a19..d4298878f5 100644
--- a/.github/workflows/main.yml
+++ b/.github/workflows/main.yml
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ jobs:
                 core.setOutput('enabled', ' but skip');
                 break;
               }
-              if (tree_id === run.head_commit.tree_id) {
+              if (run.head_commit && tree_id === run.head_commit.tree_id) {
                 core.warning(`Successful run for the tree ${tree_id}: ${run.html_url}`);
                 core.setOutput('enabled', ' but skip');
                 break;
-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH 2/2] ci: make the "skip-if-redundant" check more defensive

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

In 7d78d5fc1a9 (ci: skip GitHub workflow runs for already-tested
commits/trees, 2020-10-08), we added a check that determines whether
there is already a workflow run for the given commit (or at least tree),
and if found, skips the current run.

We just worked around an issue with this check where older runs might
unexpectedly miss the `head_commit` attribute.

Let's be even more defensive by catching all kinds of exceptions,
logging them as warnings, and continue the run without skipping it
(after all, if the check fails, we _want_ to continue with the run).

This commit is best viewed with the diff option `-w` because it
increases the indentation level of the GitHub Action script by two
spaces, surrounding it by a `try ... catch` construct.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
 .github/workflows/main.yml | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

diff --git a/.github/workflows/main.yml b/.github/workflows/main.yml
index d4298878f5..9dc359bc23 100644
--- a/.github/workflows/main.yml
+++ b/.github/workflows/main.yml
@@ -41,35 +41,39 @@ jobs:
         with:
           github-token: ${{secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN}}
           script: |
-            // Figure out workflow ID, commit and tree
-            const { data: run } = await github.actions.getWorkflowRun({
-              owner: context.repo.owner,
-              repo: context.repo.repo,
-              run_id: context.runId,
-            });
-            const workflow_id = run.workflow_id;
-            const head_sha = run.head_sha;
-            const tree_id = run.head_commit.tree_id;
+            try {
+              // Figure out workflow ID, commit and tree
+              const { data: run } = await github.actions.getWorkflowRun({
+                owner: context.repo.owner,
+                repo: context.repo.repo,
+                run_id: context.runId,
+              });
+              const workflow_id = run.workflow_id;
+              const head_sha = run.head_sha;
+              const tree_id = run.head_commit.tree_id;
 
-            // See whether there is a successful run for that commit or tree
-            const { data: runs } = await github.actions.listWorkflowRuns({
-              owner: context.repo.owner,
-              repo: context.repo.repo,
-              per_page: 500,
-              status: 'success',
-              workflow_id,
-            });
-            for (const run of runs.workflow_runs) {
-              if (head_sha === run.head_sha) {
-                core.warning(`Successful run for the commit ${head_sha}: ${run.html_url}`);
-                core.setOutput('enabled', ' but skip');
-                break;
-              }
-              if (run.head_commit && tree_id === run.head_commit.tree_id) {
-                core.warning(`Successful run for the tree ${tree_id}: ${run.html_url}`);
-                core.setOutput('enabled', ' but skip');
-                break;
+              // See whether there is a successful run for that commit or tree
+              const { data: runs } = await github.actions.listWorkflowRuns({
+                owner: context.repo.owner,
+                repo: context.repo.repo,
+                per_page: 500,
+                status: 'success',
+                workflow_id,
+              });
+              for (const run of runs.workflow_runs) {
+                if (head_sha === run.head_sha) {
+                  core.warning(`Successful run for the commit ${head_sha}: ${run.html_url}`);
+                  core.setOutput('enabled', ' but skip');
+                  break;
+                }
+                if (run.head_commit && tree_id === run.head_commit.tree_id) {
+                  core.warning(`Successful run for the tree ${tree_id}: ${run.html_url}`);
+                  core.setOutput('enabled', ' but skip');
+                  break;
+                }
               }
+            } catch (e) {
+              core.warning(e);
             }
 
   windows-build:
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ci: make the "skip-if-redundant" check more defensive

[Junio C Hamano]

"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
writes:

> Let's be even more defensive by catching all kinds of exceptions,
> logging them as warnings, and continue the run without skipping it
> (after all, if the check fails, we _want_ to continue with the run).

Yeah, looks sensible.

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ci: make the new GitHub workflow logic more defensive

[Junio C Hamano]

"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
writes:

> Phil just reported that the check I added failed miserably
> [https://github.com/phil-blain/git/runs/1238660958] in their fork, and the 
> entire run would be abandoned. That's totally unintended, and was caused by
> a different metadata format for older recorded runs.

Thanks for a quick response to breakage.

> Let's work around this particular issue, and then make the entire check a
> lot more robust.
>
> This patch series is based on js/ci-ghwf-dedup-tests.

Will queue.