Cblackburn/bump viper incrementally v2#169
Closed
sheldonmartin wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
Closed
Conversation
blaqbern
approved these changes
May 14, 2025
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Opening this PR on behalf of @blaqbern due to permission issue with #168:
#159 attempts to bump
spf13/viperfrom1.19.0to1.20.1, but there is a failing GHA because thee2e-testsjob gets the diff of the PR from the GitHub API, and the diff is so huge that it exceeds the max number of lines that can be returned from the GET pull request endpoint (ripping out a bunch of unneeded code). So this PR bumps the version incrementally to1.20.0-alpha.1which accounts for roughly half the changes, and passes thee2e-testsjob. We can then immediately upgrade from1.20.0-alpha.1to1.20.1and I believe that diff should be small enough as well. This means we'd be on an alpha version for a brief time, which is a bit dicey, but I think acceptable. In any event, I'm not sure how else we're going to get around this issue, unless we want to dig into what the test is doing and try to come up with an acceptable substitute, but that feels substantially riskier, actually. Thoughts?