Skip to content

docs(evidence): re-verify CI queue re-starvation item — already resolved (both runners online, queue drains in minutes) - #283

Merged
nish3451 merged 14 commits into
mainfrom
ci/starvation-rereverify-lane1-20260821
Aug 21, 2026
Merged

docs(evidence): re-verify CI queue re-starvation item — already resolved (both runners online, queue drains in minutes)#283
nish3451 merged 14 commits into
mainfrom
ci/starvation-rereverify-lane1-20260821

Conversation

@nish3451

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Re-verification-only closeout for the item "The single self-hosted CI runner is the release choke point — ~60 queued verify/Gitleaks runs".

Verdict: already resolved — no repo change required

Consistent with PRs #214, #217, #224. Live verification (2026-08-21 03:35Z–03:45Z):

  • Both runners online and idle: netcup-rs2000-tinystudio-verify1 and netcup-rs2000-tinystudio-verify2, both carrying the shared vps-verify label.
  • Both workflows route through the shared label (runs-on: [self-hosted, linux, x64, vps-verify]) — no per-instance labels.
  • Zero queued, zero in-progress at inspection.
  • Job-level proof both runners engage (19:01Z wave): verify jobs landed on verify1 (runs 32406421682, 32406448301) and verify2 (32406458318); Gitleaks on verify2 (32406453899, 32406436263).
  • The "~60 queued" snapshot is a transient wave: the 19:01Z batch (22 runs in the 18:55Z–19:15Z window, ~30 PRs × 2 jobs total) fully drained in ~10.5 minutes; all 100 recent runs completed/success.
  • No open PR modifies .github/workflows/* (33 open PRs scanned by diff name-only).

Evidence: .lane/reports/ci-starvation-rereverify-lane1-20260821.md

…ved (both runners online, queue drains in minutes)

Re-confirms PRs #214/#217/#224: main's shared vps-verify label reaches
both self-hosted runners; the ~60 queued observation was the 19:01Z
wave of ~30 PRs × 2 jobs, drained in ~10 minutes with zero queue left.
No workflow change required.

Co-authored-by: CommandCodeBot <noreply@commandcode.ai>
@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

@nish3451, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 15 minutes

Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available.

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

Wait for the limit to reset, then comment @coderabbitai review or push new commits to the PR.

An organization admin can change what happens after included review limits in Billing.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits within each organization.

For paid Pro and Pro+ reviews, CodeRabbit uses a developer's included PR review attempts over the past 7 days to set the current hourly allowance. At typical activity levels, the full plan allowance applies. Higher sustained activity can lower the allowance until earlier attempts leave the 7-day window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Free

Run ID: 4c41a73d-3b36-4b4f-836d-d46b1edc0314

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3949c47 and 9eddb99.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • .lane/reports/ci-starvation-rereverify-lane1-20260821.md

Note

🎁 Summarized by CodeRabbit Free

Your organization is on the Free plan. CodeRabbit will generate a high-level summary and a walkthrough for each pull request. For a comprehensive line-by-line review, please upgrade your subscription to CodeRabbit Pro by visiting https://app.coderabbit.ai/settings/billing.

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@nish3451
nish3451 merged commit 4074d79 into main Aug 21, 2026
3 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.

1 participant