aglinxinyuan opened a new issue, #5401:
URL: https://github.com/apache/texera/issues/5401

   ### What happened?
   
   A Dependabot PR that changes **only** `amber/system-requirements-lock.txt` 
receives no `pyamber` (or `dependencies`) label, so `required-checks` computes 
an empty stack union and **skips every build stack**. Seen on #5364 — "There 
was no CI ran for this PR."
   
   **Root cause.** The `pyamber` and `dependencies` rules in 
`.github/labeler.yml` match pip manifests with `**/requirements.txt` + 
`**/*-requirements.txt`. The lockfile ends in `-lock.txt`, so it matches 
neither and falls through to **zero** label rules.
   
   ```
   Before:  *-lock.txt change -> 0 labels        -> empty LABEL_STACKS union -> 
0 build stacks (silent skip)
   After:   *-lock.txt change -> pyamber + deps   -> pyamber + 
amber-integration stacks run
   ```
   
   Expected: a lockfile-only bump should run the Python CI that exercises the 
very deps it changes.
   
   ### How to reproduce?
   
   1. Open a PR editing only `amber/system-requirements-lock.txt` (e.g. a 
Dependabot bump like #5364).
   2. Let the `labeler` workflow finish.
   3. Observe: no `pyamber`/`dependencies` label is applied; `Required Checks` 
passes but every `build / …` stack is **skipped**, not run.
   
   ### Branch
   
   main
   
   ### Relevant log output
   
   Label simulation against the current `.github/labeler.yml` (actions/labeler 
minimatch semantics):
   
   amber/system-requirements-lock.txt  => (none)                 <-- bug: no 
stack-bearing label
   amber/requirements.txt              => pyamber, dependencies
   amber/dev-requirements.txt          => pyamber, dependencies
   amber/operator-requirements.txt     => pyamber, dependencies
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to