ci: testing librariangen Dockerfile change #3959
Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello @suztomo, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request focuses on maintaining the build environment for Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3959 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 80.27% 81.60% +1.33%
==========================================
Files 8 8
Lines 441 348 -93
==========================================
- Hits 354 284 -70
+ Misses 68 45 -23
Partials 19 19
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request updates the Go version in the Dockerfile to 1.25.1 and adds a final newline to the file. The Go version update is an improvement, as the previous version was older than what was specified in go.mod. However, I've left a comment suggesting to align the Go version in go.mod with the one in the Dockerfile for better consistency and maintainability.
|
|
||
| # Set environment variables for tool versions for easy updates. | ||
| ENV GO_VERSION=1.24.0 | ||
| ENV GO_VERSION=1.25.1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The Go version in go.mod is 1.24.4, while this Dockerfile now uses 1.25.1. While this change fixes an issue where the previous Dockerfile Go version (1.24.0) was lower than what go.mod required, it's best practice to keep the Go version in your build environment and your go.mod file aligned. This helps avoid subtle tooling differences and ensures consistent builds. Please consider also updating the go.mod file to go 1.25.1 in this or a follow-up PR.
|
The required checks are still marked as required. 
|
…ks" (#3960) Reverts #3953. Due to the change, GitHub Actions stopped running the checks while the checks are still marked as required. Tried this in #3959 (comment). <img width="1742" height="1336" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/513fb435-65a9-4841-b3ca-d79a00fe1687" /> The documentation about this GitHub Actions behavior is https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/collaborating-on-repositories-with-code-quality-features/troubleshooting-required-status-checks#handling-skipped-but-required-checks : > If a workflow is skipped due to [path filtering](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#onpushpull_requestpull_request_targetpathspaths-ignore), [branch filtering](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#onpull_requestpull_request_targetbranchesbranches-ignore) or a [commit message](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/managing-workflow-runs/skipping-workflow-runs), then checks associated with that workflow will remain in a "Pending" state. A pull request that requires those checks to be successful will be blocked from merging. > > If, however, a job within a workflow is skipped due to a conditional, it will report its status as "Success". For more information, see [Using conditions to control job execution](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-jobs/using-conditions-to-control-job-execution). I didn't find usages of a file path filter in the condition of a job within a workflow. https://github.com/googleapis/sdk-platform-java/blob/main/.github/workflows/verify_library_generation.yaml#L8 is is a good example how to skip the main job library-generation-unit-tests, by introducing the should-run-library-generation-tests job.
|
"build (11)", "build (17)", and "showcase (25)" didn't run. 
|
|
Trying closing/reopening the pull request. |
|
There's no pending checks. |
1 participant
Testing #3953 's effect on the required checks.