We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
Our CI can fail due to GitHub throwing a 429. i.e: Too many CI actions tried to pull from the repo and GitHub throttled us.
There are two causes of this:
Thus the requests to pull the Repo from GitHub is:
|dependabot_prs| x 79
Where 79 is the current number of individual GitHub actions created through our matrix use.
Too prevent this in the future, we should consolidate are GitHub Workflow Jobs.
Technically, a Job could run all the tox envs for a OS Version, even across Python versions.
That would dramatically reduce the requests to pull the repo down.
This reduce the number GitHub Jobs and increase the Steps per Job.
We would loose some of our high level test reporting, but I believe that is acceptable.
Originally posted by @texastony in #564 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
Issue:
Our CI can fail due to GitHub throwing a 429.
i.e: Too many CI actions tried to pull from the repo and GitHub throttled us.
There are two causes of this:
Thus the requests to pull the Repo from GitHub is:
Where 79 is the current number of individual GitHub actions created through our matrix use.
A Solution:
Too prevent this in the future, we should consolidate are GitHub Workflow Jobs.
Technically, a Job could run all the tox envs for a OS Version,
even across Python versions.
That would dramatically reduce the requests to pull the repo down.
This reduce the number GitHub Jobs and increase the Steps per Job.
We would loose some of our high level test reporting,
but I believe that is acceptable.
Originally posted by @texastony in #564 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: