-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.9k
fix: close the residual gaps from the v1 backport review #6890
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
Open
GWeale
wants to merge
1
commit into
v1
Choose a base branch
from
fix-v1-review-residuals
base: v1
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Checked the other three against upstream and they line up:
_prune_empty_dirs,_iter_artifact_dirsand_delete_artifact_syncare byte-identical toorigin/main, as is the GCS_parse_version. Good catch on thelist_versionsside of the GCS conflation -- a read resolvingmax(versions)to a version the artifact does not own was not something I had traced.Also, thank you for correcting the skill-name suggestion. I offered
.fullmatch()orquote()as equivalent options and they are not: v1 hands a resource name toself._client.skills.get(name=...)wheremainbuilds a URL string, so percent-encoding here would double-encode.fullmatchis the right call and the comment you added says why.This one is the exception to the pattern, and it is the only thing I would raise. It is not a port --
origin/main:283-288is stillexcept FileNotFoundError: pass, so this leaves v1 ahead ofmainand the next backport touching this file has a divergence to reconcile by hand. The description already makes the argument that would justify fixingmaintoo: "the displacement is a property offinallyrather than of one platform". Theto_threadwrapper makes it easier to hit on v1, but a read-only mount or a permissions problem displaces the propagating exception onmainjust the same.Non-blocking, and I would not hold this PR for it -- would it be worth sending the same three lines upstream so the two converge rather than drift?