Skip to content

GH-111758: Merge TSan and UBSan reusable GHA workflows #136820

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 20, 2025

Conversation

webknjaz
Copy link
Contributor

@webknjaz webknjaz commented Jul 19, 2025

This patch deduplicates the contents of reusable-tsan.yml and reusable-ubsan.yml, making them one. The new workflow replaces the duplicated ones in the top-level build.yml and are called with different sanitizer parameters.

It is based on Hugo's patch. Context:

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note

Prior to this PR, this workflow wasn't contributing to the branch protection status. Once it's merged, it'll fail the PRs if something crashes.

build-tsan-reusable:
name: 'Thread sanitizer'
build-san-reusable:
name: ${{ inputs.sanitizer }}
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Per discussion w/ Hugo, this needs to mention the FT flag.

@webknjaz webknjaz force-pushed the maintenance/111758-gha-combined-san branch 2 times, most recently from 8592567 to 115b8e3 Compare July 20, 2025 09:33
hugovk and others added 2 commits July 20, 2025 12:51
Co-Authored-By: Sviatoslav Sydorenko <webknjaz@redhat.com>
@webknjaz webknjaz force-pushed the maintenance/111758-gha-combined-san branch from 115b8e3 to 219e287 Compare July 20, 2025 10:51
@webknjaz webknjaz marked this pull request as ready for review July 20, 2025 12:21
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
@webknjaz webknjaz requested a review from hugovk July 20, 2025 17:19
@webknjaz
Copy link
Contributor Author

@hugovk I think this needs backport labels to keep the CI in other branches close.

@hugovk hugovk added needs backport to 3.13 bugs and security fixes needs backport to 3.14 bugs and security fixes labels Jul 20, 2025
Copy link
Member

@hugovk hugovk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you, this also nicely groups the jobs under a single collapsible thingy 👍

Before:

image

and:

image

After:

image

and:

image

@hugovk hugovk merged commit 65d2c51 into python:main Jul 20, 2025
48 checks passed
@miss-islington-app
Copy link

Thanks @webknjaz for the PR, and @hugovk for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.13, 3.14.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request Jul 20, 2025
…H-136820)

(cherry picked from commit 65d2c51c10425dcfacc0a13810d58c41240d7ff9)

Co-authored-by: 🇺🇦 Sviatoslav Sydorenko (Святослав Сидоренко) <wk.cvs.github@sydorenko.org.ua>
Co-authored-by: Sviatoslav Sydorenko <webknjaz@redhat.com>
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
@miss-islington-app
Copy link

Sorry, @webknjaz and @hugovk, I could not cleanly backport this to 3.13 due to a conflict.
Please backport using cherry_picker on command line.

cherry_picker 65d2c51c10425dcfacc0a13810d58c41240d7ff9 3.13

@bedevere-app
Copy link

bedevere-app bot commented Jul 20, 2025

GH-136883 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch.

@bedevere-app bedevere-app bot removed the needs backport to 3.14 bugs and security fixes label Jul 20, 2025
hugovk added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 20, 2025
) (#136883)

Co-authored-by: 🇺🇦 Sviatoslav Sydorenko (Святослав Сидоренко) <wk.cvs.github@sydorenko.org.ua>
Co-authored-by: Sviatoslav Sydorenko <webknjaz@redhat.com>
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
@hugovk
Copy link
Member

hugovk commented Jul 20, 2025

@hugovk I think this needs backport labels to keep the CI in other branches close.

Hmm, we didn't have UBSan in the 3.14 branch yet. I'm fine with having it there (and 3.13), but also to revert #136883 if it's not necessary to backport.

@encukou Should we have this just in main, or also backport?

@webknjaz
Copy link
Contributor Author

but also to revert #136883 if it's not necessary to backport.

I'd suggest reverting partially if needed, but the job grouping and generalization are good to keep.

@encukou
Copy link
Member

encukou commented Jul 21, 2025

@hugovk ultimately up to you, but, if it works on 3.14 I think we should keep it working.
Not on 3.13 though -- we'd need to backport #111178 to make UBSan pass.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants