Repository navigation
CI: Fix wp/7.0 CI ahead of the Node 24 port - #84170
Draft
manzoorwanijk wants to merge 10 commits into
Draft
manzoorwanijk wants to merge 10 commits into
manzoorwanijk wants to merge 10 commits into
Conversation
Ports trunk's `.github/setup-npm` action unchanged, ahead of the change that moves `wp/7.0` to Node 24 and npm 11.18 and uses it in its workflows. Landing it first keeps the Compressed Size check working on that change: `preactjs/compressed-size-action` checks out the base branch to build it, and the action's post step then needs `.github/setup-npm` to exist there.
|
Important Draft PR not reviewedDraft PRs are not automatically reviewed by default.
To automatically review draft PRs, update your CodeRabbit configuration: reviews:
auto_review:
drafts: true
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
Backport of #82478 to wp/7.0. Debian 11 bullseye reached end-of-life on 2026-08-31 and its packages left deb.debian.org, so building the PHP 7.4 and 8.0 WordPress images fails on `apt-get install`. Point the bullseye suite at archive.debian.org; the security suite is not there yet, so it is dropped.
The PHP jobs defaulted to `WordPress/WordPress`, the latest development version, so this release branch was tested against a newer core than the one it ships for and broke as core moved on (for example, the `wp-block-paragraph` class and deprecations added in WordPress 7.0). Pin the default to `WordPress/WordPress#7.0-branch`.
manzoorwanijk
changed the title
|
Size Change: 0 B Total Size: 7.61 MB ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
The report job checked out trunk and ran trunk's `packages/report-flaky-tests`, which now renders a PR comment and requires an `output-path` input this workflow does not pass. Every run with a flaky test failed "Report to GitHub" with "Input required and not supplied: output-path". Run the branch's action, whose inputs match.
manzoorwanijk
requested review from
Mamaduka,
adimoldovan,
aduth,
ciampo,
desrosj,
jsnajdr,
lancewillett and
tyxla
October 8, 2026 08:14
manzoorwanijk
added
the
[Type] Build Tooling
manzoorwanijk
marked this pull request as ready for review
October 8, 2026 08:14
|
The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the If you're merging code through a pull request on GitHub, copy and paste the following into the bottom of the merge commit message. To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook. |
`.wp-env.json` used `WordPress/WordPress`, the latest development version, so the end-to-end tests ran this release branch against a newer core than the one it ships for. Block toolbar and synced pattern specs now fail consistently. Pin the environment to `WordPress/WordPress#7.0-branch`, as the PHP tests already are.
manzoorwanijk
marked this pull request as draft
October 8, 2026 12:16
tyxla
reviewed
Oct 8, 2026
This reverts commit 4c099d6. CI starts the e2e environment with `npm run wp-env-test`, which reads .wp-env.test.json, so the pin in .wp-env.json had no effect. The next commit pins the right file.
.wp-env.test.json is what `npm run wp-env-test` uses for the e2e jobs and the local test commands. It tracked WordPress/WordPress master, so the release branch was tested against WordPress development code it was never meant to run on. Pin it to the 7.0 branch of the core mirror.
The job derived the previous major from the newest WordPress release. With 7.1 out, it picked 7.0 and the 6.9 coverage disappeared. Count back from the branch's own release instead.
wp/7.0's report-flaky-tests still opens and reopens `[Type] Flaky Test` issues and comments on pull requests, which trunk no longer does. Trunk's version takes different inputs and cannot run here, so drop the report job and the output only it read.
Without --wp-version the perf command installs WordPress/WordPress master, so a core change could fail the comparison for reasons that have nothing to do with the pull request.
This branch has not been deployed
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
What?
See #82328, #72973
Gets
wp/7.0CI green ahead of #84166, which moves the branch to Node 24 and npm 11.18 and is stacked on this PR.Why?
CI on
wp/7.0is red before any port change, so every PR in the stack would fail. #84166 also needs.github/setup-npmon its base: Compressed Size builds the base branch, and the action's post step fails if the file is missing there.How?
wp-envimage no longer builds..github/setup-npmfrom trunk, unused until Build: Move wp/7.0 to Node 24 and npm 11.18 with the npm v12 supply chain defaults #84166.Merge order: this PR, then #84166. Publishing
wp-7.0from trunk also needs #84160.Testing Instructions
CI passes on this PR and on #84166.
Use of AI Tools
Claude Code (Opus) prepared this PR; I reviewed it.