-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 151
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
no perf run for rustc PR #93089, #94061 #1159
Comments
As always, the perf run results are present - https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=df368ae457c54fb95d3e64f9986a5f171a6370f0&end=17dfae79bbc3dabe1427073086acf7f7bd45148c&stat=instructions%3Au -- just no summary comment is posted. Investigating that now. |
insert into pull_request_build (pr, complete, requested, include, exclude, runs) VALUES ($1, false, CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, $2, $3, $4) ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING The table has a couple unique constraints:
But I'm fairly confident they should not have impeded this row being inserted, so I'm confused why we don't have a row for this query -- maybe the |
Manually executing the two queries and hitting onpush seems to trigger the comment as before. @rylev / @nnethercote, do you perhaps have some idea for how to continue debugging this failure mode? My best guess right now is to add an ad-hoc select after inserting to try and confirm we inserted, but that feels... terrible and rather odd. insert into pull_request_build (pr, complete, requested) values (93089, false, CURRENT_TIMESTAMP);
update pull_request_build set bors_sha = '17dfae79bbc3dabe1427073086acf7f7bd45148c', parent_sha = 'df368ae457c54fb95d3e64f9986a5f171a6370f0' where pr = 93089 and bors_sha is null; |
My secret shame is that I managed to skip out on the supposedly mandatory databases class at university and so I know almost nothing about this stuff. Sorry :/ |
@Mark-Simulacrum perhaps we could remove the |
I'm pretty sure it's necessary -- the intent is that if there is already a row (e.g., we're queueing twice) that's OK. I guess we can avoid unwrap() and instead log::error! to avoid a panic (which would cause the end point to not return, seems bad). It does seem like the right next step I guess, though I don't really understand how there can be a conflict with (what seems like) nothing, since there's no rows for the PR in the table. |
One more, rust-lang/rust#94061 |
Looks like same as before -- not present in pull_request_build, but we did benchmark it. I am seeing the next_commit logged -- which looks like it should have produced the expected entry in pull_request_build:
I guess now that #1166 has been merged we'll try again on the next missed one. |
Yet another one. There no (visible) perf run results for PR rust-lang/rust#93089. Queue is empty, but no run for that pr in queue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: