-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
Update GitHub Actions Workflow #216
Conversation
Running the action right now. The changes look good and correct. Thanks! |
Hmm, apparently there is a deeper problem with caching which was undetected before because the My initial impression was that maybe the cached version is somehow outdated or incompatible with a newer Python version released in the meantime, so I thought incrementing the key could help. However, the error message also states:
Traceback
Should I open an issue in https://github.com/miurahr/aqtinstall/issues as suggested in the error log? Could this be related to miurahr/aqtinstall#224? |
Ya, maybe open an issue with them. We can also try bumping the version of Qt to 6.4.2 and maybe something about it changed that fixed it. Other thing we do is maybe just remove the caching action all together until we can get it working later. It's not like it's been working up until this point so we're not going to have any loss there. |
Do we know why this succeeded now but didn't before? |
Yes, incrementing the cache key in 646749b invalidated the cache, meaning the caching action did nothing (like before) and the installation succeeded. Would be interesting if the workflow succeeds again, with the new cache restored... |
That makes sense. I'm re-running the job now to see if it succeeds |
92b6c09
to
5673fd0
Compare
Seems like it 👍 So then I would blame the newer Python version and I guess this problem will only re-occur when the action runner image updates its Python version without a changed cache key (which would then require it to update |
Well, did it? After having force-pushed the branch to clean up the git history, I'm a little bit confused now which of these workflow runs was the critical 🤔
Sorry, could you approve the workflow again? |
Just ran it again |
5673fd0
to
1af697a
Compare
Hmm ok, obviously the problem persists. So I removed the GitHub cache action for the time being, since I don't have any other ideas how to fix it. |
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.
Looks good. We can revisit caching at a later time or just forget about it since it doesn't seem to have worked in the past anyway
I confirm that this contribution is made under the terms of the license found in the root directory of this repository's source tree and that I have the authority necessary to make this contribution on behalf of its copyright owner.
Thanks a lot in advance for your feedback!