Take the no-remote-exec tag into account when computing the action salt #17304
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
EdSchouten
force-pushed
the
eschouten/20230124-may-be-executed-remotely
branch
6 times, most recently
from
5f10968 to
c040120
Compare
Multiple times have I noticed build breakages, where people add/remove the "no-remote-exec" annotation from targets, which only came to light after existing remote cache entries expire. For example, people may try to promote a test to run remotely. "bazel test" shows the test passes, so they assume the test is safe to run remotely. Later on, the cache entry for that test expires. Or the test changes, causing its action cache key to be different. The test gets rebuilt remotely. This now fails, because the test never succeeded remotely to begin with. Let's formalize the schema of the "salt" field. Instead of reusing the Platform message, let's declare our own message that we can use to add arbitrary properties that should be taken into account when determining the action's uniqueness.
EdSchouten
force-pushed
the
eschouten/20230124-may-be-executed-remotely
branch
from
c040120 to
f2e36c4
Compare
sgowroji
added
team-Remote-Exec
EdSchouten
changed the title
coeuvre
approved these changes
Jan 25, 2023
coeuvre
added
awaiting-PR-merge
sgowroji
removed
the
awaiting-PR-merge
hvadehra
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2023
Multiple times have I noticed build breakages, where people add/remove the "no-remote-exec" annotation from targets, which only came to light after existing remote cache entries expire. For example, people may try to promote a test to run remotely. "bazel test" shows the test passes, so they assume the test is safe to run remotely. Later on, the cache entry for that test expires. Or the test changes, causing its action cache key to be different. The test gets rebuilt remotely. This now fails, because the test never succeeded remotely to begin with. The cache entry belonged to the action that ran locally. Let's formalize the schema of the "salt" field. Instead of reusing the Platform message, let's declare our own message that we can use to add arbitrary properties that should be taken into account when determining the action's uniqueness. Closes #17304. PiperOrigin-RevId: 505010966 Change-Id: Ib88e769795f18b1724895ebd79835b2bc3b13e1e
tjgq
pushed a commit
to tjgq/bazel
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 8, 2023
…ction salt Multiple times have I noticed build breakages, where people add/remove the "no-remote-exec" annotation from targets, which only came to light after existing remote cache entries expire. For example, people may try to promote a test to run remotely. "bazel test" shows the test passes, so they assume the test is safe to run remotely. Later on, the cache entry for that test expires. Or the test changes, causing its action cache key to be different. The test gets rebuilt remotely. This now fails, because the test never succeeded remotely to begin with. The cache entry belonged to the action that ran locally. Let's formalize the schema of the "salt" field. Instead of reusing the Platform message, let's declare our own message that we can use to add arbitrary properties that should be taken into account when determining the action's uniqueness. Closes bazelbuild#17304. PiperOrigin-RevId: 505010966 Change-Id: Ib88e769795f18b1724895ebd79835b2bc3b13e1e
iancha1992
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 8, 2023
…ction salt (#19457) Multiple times have I noticed build breakages, where people add/remove the "no-remote-exec" annotation from targets, which only came to light after existing remote cache entries expire. For example, people may try to promote a test to run remotely. "bazel test" shows the test passes, so they assume the test is safe to run remotely. Later on, the cache entry for that test expires. Or the test changes, causing its action cache key to be different. The test gets rebuilt remotely. This now fails, because the test never succeeded remotely to begin with. The cache entry belonged to the action that ran locally. Let's formalize the schema of the "salt" field. Instead of reusing the Platform message, let's declare our own message that we can use to add arbitrary properties that should be taken into account when determining the action's uniqueness. Closes #17304. PiperOrigin-RevId: 505010966 Change-Id: Ib88e769795f18b1724895ebd79835b2bc3b13e1e Co-authored-by: Ed Schouten <[email protected]>
|
The changes in this PR have been included in Bazel 6.4.0 RC1. Please test out the release candidate and report any issues as soon as possible. If you're using Bazelisk, you can point to the latest RC by setting USE_BAZEL_VERSION=last_rc. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Multiple times have I noticed build breakages, where people add/remove the "no-remote-exec" annotation from targets, which only came to light after existing remote cache entries expire.
For example, people may try to promote a test to run remotely. "bazel test" shows the test passes, so they assume the test is safe to run remotely. Later on, the cache entry for that test expires. Or the test changes, causing its action cache key to be different. The test gets rebuilt remotely. This now fails, because the test never succeeded remotely to begin with. The cache entry belonged to the action that ran locally.
Let's formalize the schema of the "salt" field. Instead of reusing the Platform message, let's declare our own message that we can use to add arbitrary properties that should be taken into account when determining the action's uniqueness.