Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34k
bpo-46470: remove unused branch from typing._remove_dups_flatten#30780
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
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Conversation
sobolevn commented Jan 22, 2022 • edited by bedevere-bot
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
edited by bedevere-bot
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
sobolevn commented Jan 22, 2022
I am lucky today, all my PRs trigger very rare error in |
JelleZijlstra left a comment
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.
I think this happened in 3.6:
In [22]: typing_inspect.get_args(Union[List[str], Set[str]]) Out[22]: ((typing.List, str), (typing.Set, str)) sobolevn commented Jan 22, 2022
This test officially won: No idea why it happens so often today. I've tried to re-trigger the CI twice, but it still fails. |
gvanrossum commented Jan 22, 2022 • edited by bedevere-bot
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
edited by bedevere-bot
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Could it be that bpo-46409 / GH-30633 destabilized that test even more? Is there evidence in other PRs that this is happening more often? If it's timing related (as sounds likely) it could also have to do with congestion in the fleet of machines where GitHub Actions are run. Possibly someone should open a separate bug. Even if it's not any PR's fault, the asyncio tests are clearly more flaky than most, and are causing a fair amount of CI churn. |
gvanrossum commented Jan 22, 2022
Trying once more. |
AlexWaygood commented Jan 22, 2022
Anecdotally, from what I can tell, it does seem to have been occurring much more often in the last few weeks. |
gvanrossum commented Jan 22, 2022 via email
So not Mark's generators PR, but maybe something else. Any chance of plotting these occurrences? That could make it obvious where to look. (But getting the data to plot might be complicated.) |
sobolevn commented Jan 22, 2022
Me-test: 1-1 😆 Now, it should be fine! |
Fidget-Spinner left a comment
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.
Wow, that's an interesting blast from the past.
bedevere-bot commented Jan 24, 2022
|
JelleZijlstra commented Jan 24, 2022
That looks unrelated to this PR. |
CC @corona10 as my mentor.
https://bugs.python.org/issue46470