From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from re-prd-fep-044.btinternet.com (mailomta27-re.btinternet.com [213.120.69.120]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ACD53858418 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2022 16:47:29 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 7ACD53858418 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=dronecode.org.uk Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=dronecode.org.uk Received: from re-prd-rgout-004.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net ([10.2.54.7]) by re-prd-fep-044.btinternet.com with ESMTP id <20220206164728.VWCE13120.re-prd-fep-044.btinternet.com@re-prd-rgout-004.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net> for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2022 16:47:28 +0000 Authentication-Results: btinternet.com; auth=pass (PLAIN) smtp.auth=jonturney@btinternet.com; bimi=skipped X-SNCR-Rigid: 613A901C137AB2B7 X-Originating-IP: [213.120.30.10] X-OWM-Source-IP: 213.120.30.10 (GB) X-OWM-Env-Sender: jonturney@btinternet.com X-VadeSecure-score: verdict=clean score=0/300, class=clean X-RazorGate-Vade: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrheefgdelgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemuceutffkvffkuffjvffgnffgvefqofdpqfgfvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjughrpefkffggfgfufhfhvfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeflohhnucfvuhhrnhgvhicuoehjohhnrdhtuhhrnhgvhiesughrohhnvggtohguvgdrohhrghdruhhkqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeviefhieehjeeikefgfedvtdekffeuteekhfefleekgedvjeekgfdtgfelgfehhfenucffohhmrghinheptgihghifihhnrdgtohhmnecukfhppedvudefrdduvddtrdeftddruddtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehhvghloheplgduledvrdduieekrddurddutdefngdpihhnvghtpedvudefrdduvddtrdeftddruddtpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepjhhonhdrthhurhhnvgihsegurhhonhgvtghouggvrdhorhhgrdhukhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepuddprhgtphhtthhopegthihgfihinhdqrghpphhssegthihgfihinhdrtghomh X-RazorGate-Vade-Verdict: clean 0 X-RazorGate-Vade-Classification: clean Received: from [192.168.1.103] (213.120.30.10) by re-prd-rgout-004.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net (5.8.716.04) (authenticated as jonturney@btinternet.com) id 613A901C137AB2B7 for cygwin-apps@cygwin.com; Sun, 6 Feb 2022 16:47:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2022 16:46:58 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1 Subject: Re: CI Jobs Not Being Submitted to Github Actions Content-Language: en-GB References: <32ee0b47-15d0-4d09-bbbb-c32e89476b8b@SystematicSw.ab.ca> <891e74ba-0267-4e4c-8d01-1708714fc095@gmail.com> From: Jon Turney To: "cygwin-apps@cygwin.com" In-Reply-To: <891e74ba-0267-4e4c-8d01-1708714fc095@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3570.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FORGED_SPF_HELO, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Cygwin package maintainer discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2022 16:47:31 -0000 On 06/02/2022 08:45, Marco Atzeri wrote: > On 06.02.2022 00:46, Brian Inglis wrote: >> https://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/jobs.cgi >> >> or is it just me? ;^> >> As far as I can tell, the REST API request to start the workflow succeeded, but no workflow run started. This looks like something transient which happened inside github (their status page shows an incident at around that time) > sometime happens, I saw same on job 3740 > > I guess the platform has some glitch, maybe for update or load, and > forgot the pending jobs This case is different, in that the workflow ran to completion, but when the 'completed' webhook fired, trying to fetch the build metadata artefact failed 404 (which seems to happen occasionally) (which means we can't find the associated job to update the status of to reflect that). In both cases, the solution is probably to make scallywag an asynchronous process, rather than a daisy-chain of hooks, so it can retry these things if they don't go to plan. Probably not happening this week, though :)