Skip to content

CI: Fixing error in code checks in GitHub actions #29683

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 18, 2019
Merged

CI: Fixing error in code checks in GitHub actions #29683

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 18, 2019

Conversation

datapythonista
Copy link
Member

xref #29546 (comment)

Looks like the code in one of the checks in ci/code_checks.sh uses another encoding for spaces and other characters. I guess it was generated from Windows, Azure-pipelines is not sensitive to the different encoding, but GitHub actions is.

Probably worth doing some more research and adding a check that makes sure this new encoding is not introduced anymore.

CC: @gfyoung @jreback

@datapythonista datapythonista added the CI Continuous Integration label Nov 18, 2019
@gfyoung gfyoung added this to the 1.0 milestone Nov 18, 2019
@gfyoung
Copy link
Member

gfyoung commented Nov 18, 2019

@datapythonista : If it doesn't produce the error in the output, LGTM.

Do you know why the pipeline didn't fail despite the encoding issue?

@datapythonista
Copy link
Member Author

It doesn't produce the error, that step at least works as expected.

We usually run scripts with set -e so at any step it fails. In this case we can't do that because we don't want to fail at the first error, but report all them. We control the exit code of the script with $RET. If one step fails (fails the way we expect it to fail) we increment $RET, and the script will fail. But in this case:

  • The first error was the echo $MSG, which we don't control if it fails or not
  • The second failed, and is the one we cared
  • But the third failed again, which was the one trying to increment $RET, so $RET stayed at zero, the script continued, and at the end if was successful

Not perfect, but I don't think we can do any better.

@gfyoung
Copy link
Member

gfyoung commented Nov 18, 2019

Not perfect, but I don't think we can do any better.

Perhaps, but good enough for now to put the explanation out there so someone can prove otherwise if there is in fact a way to improve upon this.

@jreback jreback merged commit 4988c3f into pandas-dev:master Nov 18, 2019
Reksbril pushed a commit to Reksbril/pandas that referenced this pull request Nov 18, 2019
proost pushed a commit to proost/pandas that referenced this pull request Dec 19, 2019
proost pushed a commit to proost/pandas that referenced this pull request Dec 19, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CI Continuous Integration
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants