Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@shazron
Copy link
Member

@shazron shazron commented Apr 14, 2025

How Has This Been Tested?

Will be tested in a dev/stage deployment.

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

  • I have signed the Adobe Open Source CLA.
  • My code follows the code style of this project.
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
  • I have added tests to cover my changes.
  • All new and existing tests passed.

@shazron shazron requested a review from Copilot April 14, 2025 12:32
Copy link

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Files not reviewed (1)
  • .gitattributes: Language not supported

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 14, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (592356c) to head (fd7fa75).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##            master      #191   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           12        12           
  Lines          391       391           
  Branches        41        41           
=========================================
  Hits           391       391           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Copy link
Member

@purplecabbage purplecabbage left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is in the reference to the other comments on this and the related pr.
I think this produces more future work/maintenance/complexity that is not required. If in the future we want to treat 1 of these actions differently, say for example azure-blob needs more or less memory we need to create independent env keys for each action, then independent env values for each in vault, and read them all independently ... etc.
The alternative is to just store this non-secret directly in manifest.yml and be done with it.
This is what we do already with runtime: nodejs:22, each action can have a different node version ... which is not unlike having different memory requirements.

Copy link
Member

@moritzraho moritzraho left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

approved, while I generally agree with Jesse to configure this in the manifest.
it could be useful to have the memory configurable on deployment to hotfix the service in case of oom issues and buy us some time to find the root cause

@shazron
Copy link
Member Author

shazron commented Apr 16, 2025

I am setting the memory limits for an action directly in the manifest. Here the goal was to increase the limits for one action, azure/blob while setting the rest to the default of 256 explicitly.

@shazron shazron requested a review from purplecabbage April 16, 2025 11:56
Copy link
Member

@purplecabbage purplecabbage left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is great, it is simple and focused. Do we want to take this opportunity to bump the others to 512 to be safe?
My issue was not that we were moving all actions to 1024, it was simply that we were giving up the flexibility of being able to modify them independently.

@shazron
Copy link
Member Author

shazron commented Apr 21, 2025

We haven't had an issue with the other actions so far, but they do share the same potentially problematic code (lru-cache, metrics) so I'll bump them to the next level as well.

@shazron shazron merged commit 43479c2 into master Apr 21, 2025
10 checks passed
@shazron shazron deleted the story/ACNA-3699 branch April 21, 2025 03:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants