-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 182
Revert to ubuntu-24.04 from buildjet in rpc parity workflow
#5902
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
Conversation
WalkthroughThe GitHub Actions workflow for RPC parity tests was updated to run on the standard GitHub-hosted runner "ubuntu-24.04" instead of the custom runner "buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204". Additionally, a new step was added to relocate the Docker volumes directory to a location with more free space, involving moving the directory, creating a symbolic link, and verifying the move. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes Assessment against linked issues
Assessment against linked issues: Out-of-scope changesNo out-of-scope changes detected. Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Note ⚡️ Unit Test Generation is now available in beta!Learn more here, or try it out under "Finishing Touches" below. 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (9)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
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.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/rpc-parity.yml (1)
9-22: Watch for a possible runtime regression (8 vCPU → 2 vCPU)
The priorbuildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204runner provided 8 vCPUs; GitHub-hostedubuntu-24.04offers 2 vCPUs by default. The API-compare script (Lines 15-22) plus Docker pulls/builds may now take longer and hit the 30-minute timeout (Line 22).Suggestion: raise
timeout-minutesor run the job once on the default branch to measure wall-clock time before merging to avoid flaky midnight failures.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/rpc-parity.yml(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (9)
- GitHub Check: Build forest binaries on Linux AMD64
- GitHub Check: cargo-publish-dry-run
- GitHub Check: Build Ubuntu
- GitHub Check: Build MacOS
- GitHub Check: tests
- GitHub Check: tests-release
- GitHub Check: All lint checks
- GitHub Check: Analyze (go)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (rust)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/rpc-parity.yml (1)
9-9: Confirmubuntu-24.04is GA and supports Docker-in-Docker
ubuntu-24.04runners have only recently been made available and, at times, lacked full parity with the long-standingubuntu-22.04images (e.g., kernel modules, Docker engine versions). Given this job relies heavily on Docker (Lines 20-32), please verify that:
- The image is out of preview/β and receives security updates.
- Docker commands (
docker system df, volume mounting, etc.) behave identically to22.04.If either point is uncertain, consider sticking with
ubuntu-latestuntil 24.04 is fully GA.
| rpc-parity: | ||
| name: RPC parity tests | ||
| runs-on: buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204 | ||
| runs-on: ubuntu-24.04 |
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.
You need to revive some parts of #5892 as well.
Additionally, we need to understand why this is happening in the first place. It's not very logical. Could you please create a tracking issue?
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.
Right now, we are just checking if this really resolves the issue.
But I will create a detailed issue for this to👍
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.
Done.
6bfa964 to
71b5879
Compare
Summary of changes
Changes introduced in this pull request:
buildjetso reverting it.Reference issue to close (if applicable)
Closes: #5905
Other information and links
Change checklist
Summary by CodeRabbit
Summary by CodeRabbit