-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 566
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
Make check_for_bad_build uworker safe #3416
Make check_for_bad_build uworker safe #3416
Conversation
return is_bad_build, crash_result.should_ignore(), build_run_console_output | ||
|
||
|
||
def update_build_metadata(job_type, crash_revision, is_bad_build, |
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.
So is this going to be done on the tworker in postprocess?
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.
Yes, update_build_metadata
queries the database thru the call to data_handler.get_build_state
and then conditionally writes back with data_handler.add_build_metadata
.
The next step would be to transmit the build data to the tworker postprocess and then call update_build_metadata
from there.
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.
lgtm
This reverts commit 3e2e223.
Reland of #3416 So basically, what I changed is that we're now returning `False, True, None` when `'BAD_BUILD_CHECK'` is not set. This leads `update_build_metadata` to return early. --------- Co-authored-by: jonathanmetzman
@jonathanmetzman could you please take a look?