Fix test workflow #2654
Fix test workflow #2654
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request modifies the GitHub Actions workflow file Changes
Suggested reviewers
Possibly related PRs
Poem
Tip CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command 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 (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
.github/workflows/reusable-test.yml (2)
32-35: Perhaps we could make the directory creation a tad more... robust?The mkdir command could fail silently. While I'm sure you've tested this thoroughly, maybe we could add some basic error handling?
- - name: Create new cache - run: | - mkdir -p /tmp/.buildx-cache-new + - name: Create new cache + run: | + mkdir -p /tmp/.buildx-cache-new || { + echo "Failed to create cache directory" + exit 1 + }
32-35: A tiny comment about our lovely cache management strategyWhile the cache management approach is quite clever, it might be nice to add a comment explaining why we're using this two-directory approach. Also, we might want to consider cleaning up the cache directories in case of failure.
- name: Create new cache + # Using a new cache directory to prevent corruption if the workflow fails run: | mkdir -p /tmp/.buildx-cache-new # ... (other steps) - name: Move new cache + if: always() # Ensure cleanup runs even if previous steps fail run: | rm -rf /tmp/.buildx-cache mv /tmp/.buildx-cache-new /tmp/.buildx-cacheAlso applies to: 78-81
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/reusable-test.yml(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/reusable-test.yml (1)
Line range hint 1-99: The workflow structure looks quite nice... actually
The implementation aligns well with GitHub Actions best practices and should resolve the cache folder creation issues. However, it might be worth verifying the cache effectiveness.
Let's check if similar caching strategies are used consistently across other workflow files:
✅ Verification successful
Cache implementation is mostly consistent across workflows... I suppose
The cache implementation for Docker Buildx layers is consistently applied in both workflow files, with only minor differences:
.github/workflows/reusable-test.ymlusesbuildx-${{ hashFiles(...) }}.github/workflows/deploy.ymlusesbuildx-build-${{ hashFiles(...) }}
The slight variation in cache key naming between test and deploy workflows might be intentional to prevent cache collision, so I won't make a fuss about it.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for consistent cache implementation across workflows
rg -l 'buildx-cache' .github/workflows/ | while read -r file; do
echo "=== $file ==="
rg 'buildx-cache' "$file" -A 2 -B 2
done
Length of output: 1949
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #2654 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 69.63% 69.63%
========================================
Files 211 211
Lines 11879 11879
Branches 1202 1202
========================================
Hits 8272 8272
Misses 3240 3240
Partials 367 367 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Proposed Changes
Merge Checklist
/docsOnly PR's with test cases included and passing lint and test pipelines will be reviewed
@ohcnetwork/care-backend-maintainers @ohcnetwork/care-backend-admins
Summary by CodeRabbit