Skip to content

Add workflow to update gpuCI#8215

Merged
jacobtomlinson merged 16 commits intodask:mainfrom
charlesbluca:update-gpuci-workflow
Oct 18, 2021
Merged

Add workflow to update gpuCI#8215
jacobtomlinson merged 16 commits intodask:mainfrom
charlesbluca:update-gpuci-workflow

Conversation

@charlesbluca
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Adds a workflow similar to dask-docker's Dask updating workflow to update the RAPIDS_VER used by gpuCI when a new nightly version of cuDF is available.

  • Closes #xxxx
  • Tests added / passed
  • Passes black dask / flake8 dask / isort dask

version_system: "CalVer"

- name: Strip git tags from versions
run: echo "RAPIDS_VER=${FULL_RAPIDS_VER::-10}" >> $GITHUB_ENV
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there an easier way to do this? Essentially the output of the above action will be something like 21.12.00a211004 and we want to strip the tags so that it's just 21.12. To my knowledge, GHA doesn't let you do string manipulation for env variables, so we can't do something like:

${{ steps.latest_version.outputs.version[:-10] }}

commit-message: "Update gpuCI `RAPIDS_VER` to `${{ env.RAPIDS_VER }}`"
title: "Update gpuCI `RAPIDS_VER` to `${{ env.RAPIDS_VER }}`"
reviewers: "charlesbluca"
# labels: ""
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Any suggestions on labels / reviewers? Would probably make sense to add some maintainers that are members of RAPIDS

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can probably leave off labels for now. For reviewers, I'll suggest dask/gpu instead of specific individuals. This will ensure folks from RAPIDS are pinged.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That makes sense, though it looks like we might need to use a non-default GitHub token when opening the PR in order to request review from a team:

peter-evans/create-pull-request#155 (comment)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jrbourbeau jrbourbeau left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @charlesbluca! Having this automatically handled will be nice

cc @jacobtomlinson

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jacobtomlinson jacobtomlinson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks great. Sadly the string manipulation step is necessary.

I guess we should get this merged and see how it performs.

@charlesbluca
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Thanks @jacobtomlinson - yeah, I think it makes sense to try the workflow out in this repo for the next release cycle and depending on how that goes, adding an updated (or identical) version of this to Distributed.

@jacobtomlinson
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Test failures are unrelated. Merging.

@jacobtomlinson jacobtomlinson merged commit 3067379 into dask:main Oct 18, 2021
@charlesbluca charlesbluca deleted the update-gpuci-workflow branch March 25, 2022 19:25
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