Skip to content
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

[ci] Check lock files in CI #25832

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 10, 2025
Merged

[ci] Check lock files in CI #25832

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 10, 2025

Conversation

jwnrt
Copy link
Contributor

@jwnrt jwnrt commented Jan 9, 2025

This script regenerates the Bazel, Cargo, and Python lock files and checks for a diff.

@jwnrt jwnrt requested a review from nbdd0121 January 9, 2025 12:01
@jwnrt jwnrt requested a review from rswarbrick as a code owner January 9, 2025 12:01
@pamaury
Copy link
Contributor

pamaury commented Jan 10, 2025

Stupid question: with this check, does that mean that in certain cases, if a new version of package is available, the check will fail because cargo/pip/bazel will resolve to a different version? Here I am thinking about requirements that only specify a major.minor version for example and a new patch appears upstream.

@nbdd0121
Copy link
Contributor

The cargo update command has -w specified to only touch workspace packages without updating their dependencies.

Pip is already checked in ci/scripts/check-generated.sh, so it should be moved/removed from this PR, and we know that it won't be affected by upstream package upgrade.

Not sure about Bazel deps though.

@jwnrt
Copy link
Contributor Author

jwnrt commented Jan 10, 2025

Yes, I added -w to prevent Cargo changing versions. I'm not sure about the gen-python-requirements.sh script or Bazel though... I wonder if there's a way to test this.

Both of them come back as up to date and it seems likely there have been new versions since the last time they were changed, so maybe we can assume that they're okay?

This script regenerates the Bazel, Cargo, and Python lock files and
checks for a diff.

Signed-off-by: James Wainwright <[email protected]>
@jwnrt jwnrt requested a review from pamaury January 10, 2025 13:20
Copy link
Contributor

@pamaury pamaury left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the clarification. Let's merge and we'll see how this check behaves. If we notice some issues with python or bazel, we can always do a partial revert.

@jwnrt jwnrt merged commit e52310a into lowRISC:master Jan 10, 2025
24 checks passed
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.

3 participants