You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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
When multiple workflows run on the same commit (ex memory leak check + non mem leak check), HUD tries to filter the results so that only the most recent job is shown, but sometimes I want to find older ones.
An unfortunately large change because we usually query jobs for the entire commit instead of workflow by workflow
I reused the commit query because it already queries the necessary fields (name id time duration etc) and didn't want to write another query that we would have to keep in sync
Open to better solutions for how to get this data b/c imo this is kind of ugly
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm a bit unclear on why workflow_id is being specified here. Based on the PR description, aren't you looking to get the data for a different run attempt on the same job?
I'm a bit unclear on why workflow_id is being specified here. Based on the PR description, aren't you looking to get the data for a different run attempt on the same job?
You can have multiple workflow runs of a single workflow on the same commit, each of these get a different workflow id, and each of those workflows can have multiple run attempts. This only handles the first one, the second one I put as a TODO in the PR body
Base automatically changed from
csl/workflow_box_stacks to
mainJuly 14, 2025 18:19
Gotcha, and the follow up question would be: When is this change useful enough to be worth the extra complextiy?
TD is per workflow run, so when a PR gets reopened, the new workflow sort of overwrites the old info (at least in the UI on HUD), and because reverts also auto add the no TD label, it's kind of hard to find the old run
mem leak check + rerun jobs getting into the same workflow box makes the box really big so its kind of hard to look through sometimes
It's mostly the TD thing, I want to make it easier to find that info
CLA SignedThis label is managed by the Facebook bot. Authors need to sign the CLA before a PR can be reviewed.
3 participants
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.
facebook-github-bot
added
the
CLA Signed
clee2000
force-pushed
the
csl/choose_workflow_id
branch
from
When multiple workflows run on the same commit (ex memory leak check + non mem leak check), HUD tries to filter the results so that only the most recent job is shown, but sometimes I want to find older ones.
An unfortunately large change because we usually query jobs for the entire commit instead of workflow by workflow
I reused the commit query because it already queries the necessary fields (name id time duration etc) and didn't want to write another query that we would have to keep in sync
Open to better solutions for how to get this data b/c imo this is kind of ugly
TODO: also handle reruns, better error handling
New
Probably review #6922 first