Skip to content

ci: trim comments in experimental.yml (#1967) - #2038

Merged
JarryShaw merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
ci/1967-step5-experimental
Oct 22, 2026
Merged

ci: trim comments in experimental.yml (#1967)#2038
JarryShaw merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
ci/1967-step5-experimental

Conversation

@JarryShaw

@JarryShaw JarryShaw commented Oct 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

What is the purpose of your pull request?

  • ci — workflows or build tooling

Description of your pull request and other information

#1967 step 5, part 3: experimental.yml. Stacked on #2032, so review only the top commit.

Parsed before and after, the workflow is identical once full-line comments inside run: blocks are dropped. No test or other file pins any of the cut text. The 20 files that read experimental.yml give 563 passed.

Once #2037 lands, its test and this one could fold into one parameterised test.

@JarryShaw JarryShaw added ci Pull requests that change CI or workflow configuration (ci: subject prefix) review: running A cross-review is in flight against the current head - no verdict yet labels Oct 22, 2026
@JarryShaw JarryShaw moved this to In review in PyPCAPKit Oct 22, 2026
@JarryShaw

JarryShaw commented Oct 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

NEEDS CHANGES at e1191c230 (Sonnet cross-review). Several upstream-source citations were cut, but the claims they back still stand: graal ExceptionUtils.java, xdist dsession.py, systemd-run(1), systemd run.c, setup-python find-python.ts. The "native standalone" qualifier on --vm.Xmx and the basis for --max-worker-restart=30 also went. The structure proof and the new shellcheck test both hold. A fix is in progress.

@JarryShaw JarryShaw added review: needs-changes Cross-review at the current head says changes are required; see the verdict comment and removed review: running A cross-review is in flight against the current head - no verdict yet labels Oct 22, 2026
@JarryShaw
JarryShaw force-pushed the ci/1967-step5-experimental branch from e1191c2 to 23592a4 Compare October 22, 2026 09:38
@JarryShaw JarryShaw added review: running A cross-review is in flight against the current head - no verdict yet and removed review: needs-changes Cross-review at the current head says changes are required; see the verdict comment labels Oct 22, 2026
@JarryShaw

JarryShaw commented Oct 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

GOOD TO GO at 23592a48b (Sonnet delta re-review). Every flagged citation is back beside the claim it backs, and so are the --vm.Xmx qualifier, the --max-worker-restart=30 basis and the changes checkout reason. Three more sources were restored and checked accurate: timeout-minutes, runs.post-if and uutils 0.10.0. The YAML structure proof against 9b5ce1e6f still holds.

@JarryShaw JarryShaw added review: good-to-go Cross-review at the current head says ready; CI state is separate and removed review: running A cross-review is in flight against the current head - no verdict yet labels Oct 22, 2026
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Oct 22, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Coverage: 91.54% (unit tier, Python 3.15, 9fcbca87f, Unit Tests run success)

Package Statements Missed Branches Partial Cover
pcapkit (top level) 104 4 20 2 95.16%
pcapkit/const 19599 881 2618 867 92.11%
pcapkit/corekit 2567 71 816 37 96.57%
pcapkit/dumpkit 282 3 102 3 98.44%
pcapkit/foundation 2930 23 1022 25 98.79%
pcapkit/interface 138 4 52 3 96.32%
pcapkit/protocols 17436 219 4582 185 98.15%
pcapkit/toolkit 872 36 298 10 95.21%
pcapkit/utilities 529 7 160 5 98.26%
pcapkit/vendor 4431 1995 1018 167 51.73%

Per-file detail: the coverage-html artifact of this run.

@JarryShaw

JarryShaw commented Oct 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Ordering check on 23592a48b, which contains #2031 and #2032: python util/run_unittest_leg.py project on this tree gave Ran 1723 tests in 542s, OK (skipped=71), exit 0. KTLO failing test ids: 0 across every KTLO leg. Ready to merge after #2032.

@JarryShaw
JarryShaw force-pushed the ci/1967-step5-experimental branch from 23592a4 to 8ec363e Compare October 22, 2026 14:49
@JarryShaw

JarryShaw commented Oct 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Rebased onto #2032's new head as 8ec363ec6. The tree is byte-identical and patch-id matches. Still stacked on #2032.

@JarryShaw JarryShaw mentioned this pull request Oct 22, 2026
Merged
4 of 5 tasks
@JarryShaw
ci: trim comments in experimental.yml (#1967)
9fcbca8 
- Drop history narration, run and job ids, timing tables, restated
  YAML and duplicated rationale; keep each non-obvious why with its
  issue ref and upstream source.
- Point the step caps' evidence at the KTLO test that pins them.
- Add tests/project/test_experimental_shellcheck_1967.py, which
  shellchecks every run: block as actionlint does.

Parsed YAML is unchanged apart from comment lines in one run: block.
@JarryShaw
JarryShaw force-pushed the ci/1967-step5-experimental branch from 8ec363e to 9fcbca8 Compare October 22, 2026 17:13
@JarryShaw

JarryShaw commented Oct 22, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Rebase only, no new changes: 8ec363ec6 → 9fcbca87f. Moved onto main after #2032 merged. No conflicts, and the patch-id is identical.

CI on the previous head 8ec363ec6: all green, 0 failing; the KTLO legs fail 0 tests. The GOOD TO GO verdict carries over. You can bypass checks and merge.

JarryShaw added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2026
@JarryShaw
ci: make Lint's actionlint step blocking (#1967)
1134603 
- lint.yml: drop the actionlint step's `continue-on-error`, so a finding
  fails Lint; move it below the advisory steps and run it on `!cancelled()`
  so a finding skips none of them and a failed setup does not skip it.
  Version and sha256 pin unchanged.
- lint.yml: the step's comment says it blocks, why that is safe now
  (#2023, #2037, #2038), and that the image's shellcheck can drift.
- workflows.rst: Workflow Lint no longer calls the step advisory.
- test_actionlint_in_lint_1967: TestItBlocks pins the blocking shape;
  test_unit_tests_shellcheck_1967's docstring no longer says advisory.
JarryShaw added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2026
@JarryShaw
ci: make Lint's actionlint step blocking (#1967)
5845cd4 
- lint.yml: drop the actionlint step's `continue-on-error`, so a finding
  fails Lint; move it below the advisory steps and run it on `!cancelled()`
  so a finding skips none of them and a failed setup does not skip it.
  Version and sha256 pin unchanged.
- lint.yml: the step's comment says it blocks, why that is safe now
  (#2023, #2037, #2038), and that the image's shellcheck can drift.
- workflows.rst: Workflow Lint no longer calls the step advisory.
- test_actionlint_in_lint_1967: TestItBlocks pins the blocking shape;
  test_unit_tests_shellcheck_1967's docstring no longer says advisory.
JarryShaw added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2026
@JarryShaw
ci: make Lint's actionlint step blocking (#1967)
275f0cf 
- lint.yml: drop the actionlint step's `continue-on-error`, so a finding
  fails Lint; move it below the advisory steps and run it on `!cancelled()`
  so a finding skips none of them and a failed setup does not skip it.
  Version and sha256 pin unchanged.
- lint.yml: the step's comment says it blocks, why that is safe now
  (#2023, #2037, #2038), and that the image's shellcheck can drift.
- workflows.rst: Workflow Lint no longer calls the step advisory.
- test_actionlint_in_lint_1967: TestItBlocks pins the blocking shape;
  test_unit_tests_shellcheck_1967's docstring no longer says advisory.
@JarryShaw
JarryShaw merged commit f6d2ef4 into main Oct 22, 2026
59 checks passed
JarryShaw added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2026
@JarryShaw
ci: make Lint's actionlint step blocking (#1967)
e54eeaa 
- lint.yml: drop the actionlint step's `continue-on-error`, so a finding
  fails Lint; move it below the advisory steps and run it on `!cancelled()`
  so a finding skips none of them and a failed setup does not skip it.
  Version and sha256 pin unchanged.
- lint.yml: the step's comment says it blocks, why that is safe now
  (#2023, #2037, #2038), and that the image's shellcheck can drift.
- workflows.rst: Workflow Lint no longer calls the step advisory.
- test_actionlint_in_lint_1967: TestItBlocks pins the blocking shape;
  test_unit_tests_shellcheck_1967's docstring no longer says advisory.
@JarryShaw
JarryShaw deleted the ci/1967-step5-experimental branch October 22, 2026 18:54
@github-project-automation github-project-automation Bot moved this from In review to Done in PyPCAPKit Oct 22, 2026
@JarryShaw JarryShaw removed the review: good-to-go Cross-review at the current head says ready; CI state is separate label Oct 22, 2026
JarryShaw added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2026
@JarryShaw
ci: make Lint's actionlint step blocking (#1967) (#2043)
d82a9cf 
- lint.yml: drop the actionlint step's `continue-on-error`, so a finding
  fails Lint; move it below the advisory steps and run it on `!cancelled()`
  so a finding skips none of them and a failed setup does not skip it.
  Version and sha256 pin unchanged.
- lint.yml: the step's comment says it blocks, why that is safe now
  (#2023, #2037, #2038), and that the image's shellcheck can drift.
- workflows.rst: Workflow Lint no longer calls the step advisory.
- test_actionlint_in_lint_1967: TestItBlocks pins the blocking shape;
  test_unit_tests_shellcheck_1967's docstring no longer says advisory.
@JarryShaw JarryShaw mentioned this pull request Oct 23, 2026
Closed
@JarryShaw JarryShaw added this to the PyPCAPKit v1.5 milestone Oct 26, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

ci Pull requests that change CI or workflow configuration (ci: subject prefix)

Projects

PyPCAPKit
Status: Done

Milestone

PyPCAPKit v1.5

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@JarryShaw