-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
fix(watchdog): stop one bad dispatch from killing the whole scan #10180
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
Open
MarkusNeusinger
wants to merge
5
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
fix/watchdog-dead-ends
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
3330710
fix(watchdog): stop one bad dispatch from killing the whole scan
MarkusNeusinger 52b3559
docs(changelog): reference PR #10180
MarkusNeusinger 04f5b5d
fix(watchdog): respect a deliberately disabled daily-regen
MarkusNeusinger 8d4932a
fix(watchdog): report the dispatch-failure tally at end of scan
MarkusNeusinger d003c82
fix(watchdog): truncate the error message without a pipeline
MarkusNeusinger File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Some comments aren't visible on the classic Files Changed page.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
Correct, and the gap was real: the counter was incremented and never read, so "counted and reported" only held for the inline per-failure warnings. Fixed in 5a8f0e4 — the scan's closing line now states the tally.
This matters beyond tidiness. Without it, a scan that dispatched nothing successfully reads exactly like a quiet, healthy one — and an always-green watchdog that silently rescues nothing is the precise failure mode this PR exists to fix.
Deliberately not
exit 1on a non-zero tally: aborting the scan is what took it down in the first place, and a red run would bury the summary behind a failed step.Your comment also surfaced an adjacent risk worth pinning down rather than reasoning about. The counter only works if the increments happen in the current shell. The real scans are
while read ... done < <(jq -c '.[]')— process substitution, so the body does run in the current shell — but had they beenjq | while readpipelines, every increment would have landed in a subshell and the tally would have printed0forever, which is worse than no tally at all. Two cases now assert it against the real loop form:Suite is 25 cases, all passing.