fix: Checkout branch in ExaTrk CI #3967
Conversation
WalkthroughChanges made to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Currently, the ExaTrk CI is trying to run a dependency script before having properly checked out the right branch, possible causing a CI error. This commit ensures that the target branch is properly checked out before trying to use any files in the repository.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
.gitlab-ci.yml (1)
158-161: Consistent across the jobs, this pattern is!In all ExaTrk jobs, the same sequence follows:
- test_exatrkx_python
- linux_test_examples
- linux_physmon
Wisdom in consistency, there is. Prevent confusion and errors, it does!
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.gitlab-ci.yml(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
.gitlab-ci.yml (2)
158-161: Correct, the sequence of commands is, hmm! Approve this change, I do!
Proper order maintained, it has:
- To source directory, we go first
- The correct commit, we checkout then
- Dependencies, we source after
- To original path, we return finally
Prevent errors from wrong branch usage, this will. Strong with the Force, this change is!
158-161: Verify the presence of required components, we must!
Check these elements, we should:
- The $HEAD_SHA variable, properly set it must be
- The dependencies script, exist it must
✅ Verification successful
Safe and sound, these components are, hmmmm
Verified the critical elements, I have:
- Present and functional, the CI/dependencies.sh script is
- Through GitLab CI variables and job configurations, properly set the HEAD_SHA is
- Dependencies script, robust error handling and environment setup it provides
In balance with the Force, this configuration stands. No disturbance do I sense.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the presence of required components
# Test: Check if CI/dependencies.sh exists
echo "Checking for dependencies script..."
fd "dependencies.sh" --type f
# Test: Check if HEAD_SHA is used consistently
echo "Checking HEAD_SHA usage..."
rg "\$HEAD_SHA" --type yaml
Length of output: 221
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Hmm, deeper we must look, yes
# The HEAD_SHA variable, its definition we seek
echo "Search for HEAD_SHA definition, we shall..."
rg "HEAD_SHA\s*=" -A 2
# The dependencies script's contents, examine we must
echo "The dependencies script's wisdom, reveal we shall..."
cat CI/dependencies.sh
# Variables before git checkout, inspect we shall
echo "Variables in CI configuration, find we must..."
rg "variables:" .gitlab-ci.yml -A 10
Length of output: 6843
|
The main (or rather still master) branch on my fork is 3 years and 11 months stale and that's the way I like it! |
|
acts-project-service
added
the
Breaks Athena build
Currently, the ExaTrk CI is trying to run a dependency script before having properly checked out the right branch, possible causing a CI error. This commit ensures that the target branch is properly checked out before trying to use any files in the repository.
Summary by CodeRabbit