-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.3k
CI fix: Bump uv to 0.7.20 #53207
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
CI fix: Bump uv to 0.7.20 #53207
Conversation
f68b6bd
to
bdffcf5
Compare
bdffcf5
to
ef65181
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the fix, Pavan! We may need to add the full test label to run the failed task in the CI. Upgrade Check skipped in the CI
Backport failed to create: v3-0-test. View the failure log Run details
You can attempt to backport this manually by running: cherry_picker 13c28dc v3-0-test This should apply the commit to the v3-0-test branch and leave the commit in conflict state marking After you have resolved the conflicts, you can continue the backport process by running: cherry_picker --continue |
Upgrade check only runs in "canary" by design. However there is something wrong because we should only "fail" upgrade check when Python, PIP, pre-commit, or Node changes - we should not fail when UV and GOLANG changes. So something is wrong in the upgrade script:
The approach we have that we do not want to fail canary build with upgrade check too often - an only when important things change - so we have two upgrade checks running - one will not fail (see || true at the end) - it will just print what needs to be upgraded) when uv, golang need upgrade, the other will fail when Python or PIP changes. Then when we run So ... for some reason it failed not as intended as only UV and GOLANG changed. |
Ha.... That was the problem:
|
(cherry picked from commit 13c28dc) Co-authored-by: GPK <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 13c28dc) Co-authored-by: GPK <[email protected]>
Yes, I know that's why I mentioned maybe good to test in the PR CI to be fully sure, but changes are obvious and from pre-commit, so it is not a blocker to see it green :) |
https://github.com/apache/airflow/actions/runs/16228209328/job/45825176831
^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in a newsfragment file, named
{pr_number}.significant.rst
or{issue_number}.significant.rst
, in airflow-core/newsfragments.