-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32.1k
Merge TSAN test matrices in CI #123278
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merge TSAN test matrices in CI #123278
Conversation
@hugovk still conflicted about what to do with the skipped job names but figured I'd reshape another test job pair to have the same structure.. |
5779c18
to
648f35a
Compare
with: | ||
config_hash: ${{ needs.check_source.outputs.config_hash }} | ||
options: ./configure --config-cache --with-thread-sanitizer --with-pydebug | ||
suppressions_path: Tools/tsan/supressions.txt |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
NOTE: there was a typo in the filename, so this patch also fixes that.
s/supressions.txt/suppressions.txt/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So this is what was causing the CI job to fail: #123278 (comment)
Previously, they were duplicated, with custom commands being passed to the same reusable workflow. This patch moves the commands in and adds a matrix resembling the interface of other reusable workflows.
A `p` was missing before this patch. And now it doesn't.
b0fc735
to
d6fe871
Compare
@hugovk this should be ready for the final review and merge now that I've found and addressed the problem. |
Looks like there's some flaky ASAN tests, so I reopened the PR to retrigger the CI: https://github.com/python/cpython/actions/runs/13000662810/job/36258482466?pr=123278#step:16:877 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! I think we only need to backport this to 3.13?
cc @corona10
@hugovk personally, I think that CI updates should be ported as far back as possible to facilitate any future backports in terms of conflicts. |
Yeah, let's try to 3.12 then, but I expect conflicts :) |
Sorry, @webknjaz and @hugovk, I could not cleanly backport this to
|
Sorry, @webknjaz and @hugovk, I could not cleanly backport this to
|
(cherry picked from commit 03d9cdb)
(cherry picked from commit 03d9cdb)
GH-129673 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch. |
GH-129674 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.12 branch. |
(cherry picked from commit 03d9cdb)
Previously, they were duplicated, with custom commands being passed to the same reusable workflow. This patch moves the commands in and adds a matrix resembling the interface of other reusable workflows.