Skip to content

fix(ci): make refresh dispatch explicit about evals and experiments - #362

Open
mattrossman wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
mattrossman/ai-1005-intersect-explicit-experiments
Open

mattrossman wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
mattrossman/ai-1005-intersect-explicit-experiments

Conversation

@mattrossman

@mattrossman mattrossman commented Oct 2, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Dispatching a refresh for specific experiments has failed several times since July (Jul 16, Jul 24, Jul 28, Aug 7, Aug 14, Aug 26, Sep 9, Sep 30), and keeps coming up on Slack. This causes false alarms on runs and wasted sandboxes.

Manual refresh dispatches now run only what you ask for:

  • Explicit experiments run only in suites they belong to. Each listed experiment used to be planned in every suite the eval allows. A mixed list now plans just the 2 valid pairs.
  • No benchmark default. suite and experiment_suite start blank, and the run fails fast unless you name evals (suite or eval) and experiments (experiment_suite or experiments). The default made sense when refreshes were mainly handled by AI team and mostly for the public benchmark, but now the benchmark is rarely refreshed and multiple teams work in the repo. A dispatch with only eval set and suite blank still plans its pairs.
  • One refresh branch per run. create-pull-request resets an existing branch, so a shared name let a later run wipe an earlier run's results. To keep adding to one refresh PR, dispatch on its branch with commit_to_branch=true.

Closes AI-1005

@vercel

vercel Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

1 Skipped Deployment
Project Deployment Actions Updated
evals Ignored Ignored Preview Oct 5, 2026 4:09pm UTC

Request Review

@mattrossman mattrossman changed the title fix(ci): support mixed explicit refresh experiments fix(ci): make refresh dispatch explicit about evals and experiments Oct 5, 2026
@mattrossman
mattrossman marked this pull request as ready for review October 5, 2026 18:13
@mattrossman
mattrossman requested a review from a team as a code owner October 5, 2026 18:13
branch: chore/refresh-eval-results-${{ github.ref_name }}-${{ github.event_name }}-${{ join(fromJSON(needs.prepare.outputs.suite), '-') }}
# The action resets an existing branch, so a shared name would drop earlier results.
# https://github.com/peter-evans/create-pull-request/blob/5f6978faf089d4d20b00c7766989d076bb2fc7f1/src/create-or-update-branch.ts#L297-L310
branch: chore/refresh-eval-results-${{ github.ref_name }}-${{ github.run_id }}

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I might be missing something, but I think this also changes the nightly schedule right?
Before, each night reused the same branch, so an incomplete night's PR was replaced the next day. With the run ID in the name, I think an incomplete night would leave its PR open and the next night would open a new one. It hasn't happened yet, since the recent scheduled runs all completed and auto-merged.

Would it be worth adding the run ID only for manual dispatches? Something like:

branch: chore/refresh-eval-results-${{ github.ref_name }}-${{ github.event_name == 'workflow_dispatch' && github.run_id
|| github.event_name }}

No strong opinion if open PRs piling up is fine in practice.

type: boolean
required: false
default: false
commit_to_branch:

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Small thing about the PR description: for "keep adding to one refresh PR, dispatch on its branch with commit_to_branch=true", I think merge=true might be needed too. Without it, export-results.ts seems to write only the current run's results to the file, so the earlier ones on that branch would be replaced.

Maybe worth mentioning in the description or in this input's description? I could be misreading the export step.

@Rodriguespn Rodriguespn left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approving with two comments. Please read them before merging. Thank you for working on this!

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
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.

2 participants