Support overwriting caches #2265
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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 comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
1 similar comment
This comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
|
Weird, I don't think the failed CI is related now. 
|
This comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
Yes this is probably true in act, since the run_number, run_id, run_attempt doesn't update automatically. I'm not yet shure that this is the same Key on GitHub Actions Servers, but they could have silently implemented the override cache feature request. For act it's fine for me to merge...
Should we remove that flaky test? I mean it caused a lot of reruns in the past |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2265 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 61.56% 62.37% +0.81%
==========================================
Files 53 56 +3
Lines 9002 9127 +125
==========================================
+ Hits 5542 5693 +151
+ Misses 3020 2986 -34
- Partials 440 448 +8 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
This comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
@ChristopherHX Thank you for pointing out the problem. I was lost in the huge logs. How about #2266? I have tested the commit in this PR, and it works, but I will revert it since it is unrelated. |
@ChristopherHX I am sure GitHub Actions support multiple caches with the same key. Let me show you the cache manage page of the Gitea repo. 
|
This comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
|
It should wait #2266. |
Ah yes that are cache scopes that are not implemented here. They are unique per repo + ref only default branch scope |
Actually I have already implemented the cache scope, maybe port it later after this PR. |
|
If we have same scope key and version it still fails on GitHub Actions I'm still cross checking your simplifications to cache restore, because it looks now
So would the entries look like
|
|
So I assume this no longer resolves to the absolute key match
And would restore the key with |
ChristopherHX
approved these changes
Mar 28, 2024
|
Hmm, I'm blind here is the bug I meant GitHub |
|
My own understanding is also a bit wrong...
We should alter the orderby statement to always return exact matched keys first, regardless of position in the list |
|
Created a followup #2267 |
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.
In the old implementation, it assumes that there will be no duplicate uploads of caches with the same key.
But in fact, some actions like
actions/setup-gowill do something like:It will result in a failure (though it will actually be ignored) with the following log:
To support it, this PR introduces some changes.
I have tested the code with a custom act_runner. It works well and is compatible with old data.