Skip to content

Bump workflows to Ubuntu 26.04 and r-version 4.6.1#532

Closed
IsaacG wants to merge 4 commits into
exercism:mainfrom
IsaacG:gha.ubuntu.26
Closed

Bump workflows to Ubuntu 26.04 and r-version 4.6.1#532
IsaacG wants to merge 4 commits into
exercism:mainfrom
IsaacG:gha.ubuntu.26

Conversation

@IsaacG

@IsaacG IsaacG commented Jul 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

No description provided.

@IsaacG IsaacG changed the title Bump workflows to Ubuntu 26.04 Bump workflows to Ubuntu 26.04 and r-version 4.6.1 Jul 12, 2026
@colinleach

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I have no immediate suggestions for why this is failing. I'll look into it, but suggestions welcome.

@colinleach
colinleach marked this pull request as draft July 12, 2026 18:29
IsaacG and others added 2 commits July 12, 2026 11:33
We _may_ be locking the built-in actions to an unsuitable release. This is an experiment to see if GH can sort itself out.
@colinleach

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The problem is within the built-in action r-lib/actions/setup-r-dependencies. I have no idea how to fix whatever GitHub is doing.

How important is the Ubuntu 24.04 to 26.04 at this time? The older version is still LTS until May 2029, and it works. R installations have a lot of (rather brittle) moving parts, and we mess with them at our peril.

I'm tempted to PR an R upgrade to 4.6.1, without changing the OS. Partly out of curiosity to see if it errors.

@BethanyG

BethanyG commented Jul 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@colinleach

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Looks like it can't find pak

I don't think so. The pak GH repo has been updated within the last 3 days. In any case, we would need GH to fix their built-in action.

@colinleach

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

#533 makes the R change without the Ubuntu change. CI is still running, but it already got a lot further than this #532. This reinforces my gut feeling (uneducated prejudice) that an early upgrade to Ubuntu 26.04 is more trouble than it's worth.

Maybe try again in a couple of months, and see what changes?

Update: #533 completed successfully, Bethany approved, we can merge.

@BethanyG

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Shall we close this then?

@BethanyG BethanyG closed this Jul 19, 2026
@colinleach

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Shall we close this then?

I'm in favor, is @IsaacG?

@IsaacG

IsaacG commented Jul 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Shall we close this then?

I'm in favor, is @IsaacG?

You and Bethany are R maintainers. I'm not. I defer to y'all!

If Ubuntu 26 "just works", it's nice to bump it. If there's incompatibilities, there's no rush to bump it. Eventually we'll need to update it. If something doesn't work on 26, we can hope upstream fixes the issue or we'll need to figure it out at some point, so we probably don't want to forget about this until we realize 24 is no longer supported. But if it helps to wait 6 months, then there's no rush!

@IsaacG
IsaacG deleted the gha.ubuntu.26 branch July 19, 2026 19:11
@BethanyG

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Probably for another day, but if the runner uses r-minimal, perhaps we should use it here as well. Can't remember off the top of my head, but I think on the Python runner we do this thing where we use Ubuntu (runs on), but then pull the Alpine container to do the actual testing (using container: ____), plus the run-in-docker.sh script.
https://github.com/exercism/python-test-runner/blob/main/.github/workflows/main.yml#L43.

Perhaps we can look at doing that here as well. Or just wait for GH to un-munge their script. Either way, pak is essential, since it's the R package manager du jour.

@IsaacG

IsaacG commented Jul 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

There are a couple of tracks that pull in the Exercism Docker image for testing. It certainly makes setup easier!

There's at least one track that explicitly runs tests on both the Exercism Docker image and the GHA image. It's possible the intent here is to test a wider range of environments as students might be running the tests locally in different settings.

Either approach makes sense, depending on what exactly you want to test.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants