Yicong-Huang opened a new pull request, #6990:
URL: https://github.com/apache/texera/pull/6990

   ### What changes were proposed in this PR?
   
   `release/v1.2` pins `sbt/setup-sbt@508b753e53cb6095967669e0911487d2b9bc9f41` 
(v1.1.22), which is **not on the ASF GitHub Enterprise actions allowlist**. 
GitHub rejects the workflow while building the graph, so the **Required 
Checks** workflow ends in `startup_failure` and no CI runs on `release/v1.2` — 
the `precheck` job never executes, which is why CI appears to "not trigger by 
label".
   
   This bumps all 6 pins to the allowlisted version already used on `main` 
(green there):
   
   ```
   - sbt/setup-sbt@508b753e53cb6095967669e0911487d2b9bc9f41 # v1.1.22
   + sbt/setup-sbt@6444f4c8111de4b9059c3975def104b03cfaa5f0 # v1.5.2
   ```
   
   - `.github/workflows/build.yml` (×3)
   - `.github/workflows/build-and-push-images.yml` (×3)
   
   Minimal targeted change rather than backporting the large github-actions 
group bump (#6187), which touches 15 actions across 17 files and conflicts 
heavily against v1.2.
   
   ### Any related issues, documentation, discussions?
   
   Fixes #6989. `main` reached v1.5.2 via #6710 (`d28b761ae`). Unblocks 
backport PRs #6982 and #6984.
   
   ### How was this PR tested?
   
   This PR's own Required Checks run is the test: because the head branch 
already uses the allowlisted `sbt/setup-sbt@6444f4c8` (v1.5.2), the workflow 
should now start successfully instead of `startup_failure`. Diff is limited to 
the 6 action pins (verified no other `508b753e` references remain in 
`.github/workflows/`).
   
   ### Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
   
   Yes — authored with Claude Code.
   
   🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
   


-- 
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