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

Can we have different executor for the format task #318

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 18, 2025
Merged

Conversation

hackartisan
Copy link
Member

that doesn't run all the containers?

that doesn't run all the containers
Copy link

Container Scanning Status: ✅ Success


ghcr.io/pulibrary/dpul-collections:pr-318 (debian 12.6)
=======================================================
Total: 0 (HIGH: 0, CRITICAL: 0)

@tpendragon
Copy link
Contributor

Was the format task running slow or something?

@hackartisan
Copy link
Member Author

Was the format task running slow or something?

I was waiting for it to finish when the test had already passed at one point last week, and that annoyed me so I started messing with this. I don't really know if the stats in general support it.

@hackartisan
Copy link
Member Author

This run seems within the bounds of the recent history of formatting check runs, so maybe it's not any faster. but it's at the low end of that bound. I can try rerunning it, too, to get another sample.

@hackartisan
Copy link
Member Author

Ran this a second time and it was a few seconds faster than the previous fastest run.

@tpendragon
Copy link
Contributor

We might be able to get faster in the future by caching the compile or something, but for now this is great.

@tpendragon tpendragon merged commit d3273e3 into main Feb 18, 2025
4 checks passed
@tpendragon tpendragon deleted the formatter branch February 18, 2025 00:57
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