From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sa-prd-fep-044.btinternet.com (mailomta2-sa.btinternet.com [213.120.69.8]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D00953858D35 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2023 12:55:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org D00953858D35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=dronecode.org.uk Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dronecode.org.uk Received: from sa-prd-rgout-002.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net ([10.2.38.5]) by sa-prd-fep-044.btinternet.com with ESMTP id <20230628125544.VTHH11931.sa-prd-fep-044.btinternet.com@sa-prd-rgout-002.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net>; Wed, 28 Jun 2023 13:55:44 +0100 Authentication-Results: btinternet.com; auth=pass (PLAIN) smtp.auth=jonturney@btinternet.com; bimi=skipped X-SNCR-Rigid: 64067E9B0D46DE5E X-Originating-IP: [81.129.146.196] X-OWM-Source-IP: 81.129.146.196 (GB) X-OWM-Env-Sender: jonturney@btinternet.com X-VadeSecure-score: verdict=clean score=0/300, class=clean X-RazorGate-Vade: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedviedrtddvgdehjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemuceutffkvffkuffjvffgnffgvefqofdpqfgfvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfhfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeflohhnucfvuhhrnhgvhicuoehjohhnrdhtuhhrnhgvhiesughrohhnvggtohguvgdrohhrghdruhhkqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehudeuveeujeeujeegueefhedttdekvedtudeileefteetfeefjeejudekfefggfenucffohhmrghinheptgihghifihhnrdgtohhmnecukfhppeekuddruddvledrudegiedrudelieenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhephhgvlhhopegludelvddrudeikedruddruddtiegnpdhinhgvthepkedurdduvdelrddugeeirdduleeipdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepjhhonhdrthhurhhnvgihsegurhhonhgvtghouggvrdhorhhgrdhukhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepvddprhgtphhtthhopegsohholhgvrghnlhgrsggvlhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopegthihgfihinhdqrghpphhssegthihgfihinhdrtghomhdprhgvvhfkrfephhhoshhtkeduqdduvdelqddugeeiqdduleeirdhrrghnghgvkeduqdduvdelrdgsthgtvghnthhrrghlphhluhhsrdgtohhmpdgruhhthhgpuhhsvghrpehjohhnthhurhhnvgihsegsthhinhhtvghrnhgv thdrtghomhdpghgvohfkrfepifeupdfovfetjfhoshhtpehsrgdqphhrugdqrhhgohhuthdqtddtvd X-RazorGate-Vade-Verdict: clean 0 X-RazorGate-Vade-Classification: clean Received: from [192.168.1.106] (81.129.146.196) by sa-prd-rgout-002.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net (5.8.814) (authenticated as jonturney@btinternet.com) id 64067E9B0D46DE5E; Wed, 28 Jun 2023 13:55:44 +0100 Message-ID: <1a364c43-1679-6739-ba79-d516d00a1205@dronecode.org.uk> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 13:55:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0 Subject: Re: scallywag error report Content-Language: en-GB To: Daisuke Fujimura , "cygwin-apps@cygwin.com" References: From: Jon Turney In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 28/06/2023 11:56, Daisuke Fujimura via Cygwin-apps wrote: > I am reporting a scallywag error during git push. > > remote: scallywag: invoked on repository git/cygwin-packages/libhtp, > by maintainer Daisuke Fujimura > remote: scallywag: timeout waiting for GitHub to assign a wfr_id > remote: scallywag: PLEASE REPORT THIS! > remote: scallywag: build 6661 queued on github > remote: scallywag: https://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/jobs.cgi?id=6661 > > The job is completed, but the status seems to remain pending. Thanks for reporting this. Yeah, this is an awkward part of the GitHub API we use here: all we get back from the request to start the workflow is a "yes/no" response, so we have to work out how to match the workflow id to our build number ourselves. I've repaired this job so it's reached it's final status. I've temporarily increased the timeout here to two minutes (where we wait for the just requested workflow to appear in the list of workflows so we know it's id). I have an idea about a possibly better way to implement this matching, but haven't yet got around to trying to implement it yet...