-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 452
Overlay: Determine which versions of CodeQL are compatible with cached base DBs #3809
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
Open
henrymercer
wants to merge
4
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
henrymercer/determine-overlay-version
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
201ddc2
Retrieve CodeQL versions associated with cached overlay base DBs
henrymercer 5026833
Document exclusion of nightlies
henrymercer af1f613
Use type-only imports
henrymercer 1279e8d
Mitigate caches being evicted before they can be downloaded
henrymercer File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Some comments aren't visible on the classic Files Changed page.
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Sorry to be very critical here, but I don't think this is architecturally a good mitigation for the problem, and adds extra complexity for (IMHO) little gain.
Cache eviction is based on several criteria, and age is only one of them. This mitigation guards against the case where:
That's a valid problem and will happen once in a while, but isn't very common.
I am probably more concerned about high-traffic repos where workflows are uploading caches all the time, and may cause a cache we have identified to be evicted at essentially any time for space reasons. Checking the age of the cache we want doesn't guard against that. (Unless we also check all other caches to see how likely it is that ours would be evicted first, but I don't think that's worth the effort.)
I think realistically, a better solution might just be to stick this logic in a retry loop: find a suitable cache, try to download it, and if it fails attempt the process another time or two.