Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Merge develop into next #3897

Merged
merged 660 commits into from
Sep 10, 2023
Merged

Merge develop into next #3897

merged 660 commits into from
Sep 10, 2023

Conversation

obycode
Copy link
Contributor

@obycode obycode commented Sep 6, 2023

Description

Applicable issues

  • fixes #

Additional info (benefits, drawbacks, caveats)

Checklist

  • Test coverage for new or modified code paths
  • Changelog is updated
  • Required documentation changes (e.g., docs/rpc/openapi.yaml and rpc-endpoints.md for v2 endpoints, event-dispatcher.md for new events)
  • New clarity functions have corresponding PR in clarity-benchmarking repo
  • New integration test(s) added to bitcoin-tests.yml

sergey-shandar and others added 30 commits July 6, 2023 08:40
@sergey-shandar
New version of Regex (1.9.0) is not compatible with 1.8 if we use `in…
70b21d6 
…ternal`
@sergey-shandar
update cargo lock
ee7e754
@pavitthrap
Merge pull request #3738 from stacks-network/fix/utxo-lookup
183a043 
Fix/utxo lookup
@Acaccia
Merge branch 'develop' into fix/mixup-config-parsing
ef06ae9
@kantai
feat: ignore logging errors rather than panicking
3bd9f46
@jcnelson
Merge branch 'develop' into feat/stackerdb-messages
01c25ac
@jcnelson
Merge branch 'feat/stackerdb-messages' into feat/stackerdb-discovery
ab1d4f8
@kantai
Merge pull request #3784 from stacks-network/feat/ignore-logging-errors
c8ebe3e 
Feat: ignore logging errors rather than panicking
@sergey-shandar
Revert back Cargo.toml/lock and remove use regex::.
26ad8bd
@kantai
Merge pull request #3779 from stacks-network/sergey-shandar-patch-1
d15a822 
The new version of Regex (1.9.0) is not compatible with 1.8
@obycode
docs: use rustfmt instead of cargo fmt in pre-commit
cec7b4b 
The `cargo fmt` command recommended to include in the `pre-commit` hook
will run on all files, instead of just the changed files as intended.
This change uses `rustfmt` to just run on one file at a time as
intended.
@obycode
Merge pull request #3799 from stacks-network/fix/pre-commit
143bf2b 
docs: use `rustfmt` instead of `cargo fmt` in pre-commit
@Acaccia
Merge branch 'develop' into fix/mixup-config-parsing
40f1965
@jcnelson @obycode
Update src/net/stackerdb/mod.rs
360906a 
Co-authored-by: Brice Dobry <[email protected]>
@jcnelson @obycode
Update src/net/stackerdb/mod.rs
21cf846 
Co-authored-by: Brice Dobry <[email protected]>
@jcnelson @obycode
Update src/net/stackerdb/mod.rs
9a34a0e 
Co-authored-by: Brice Dobry <[email protected]>
@jcnelson
Merge branch 'develop' into feat/stackerdb-messages
b6bc8af
@wileyj
attempt to reclaim diskspace
1803c73
@wileyj
gather more info around disk usage
2191a5e
@wileyj
docker prune
baace48
@wileyj
remove docker prune
0c96fd5
@wileyj
preserve docker images
f54030e
@wileyj
cleanup
b02e48f
@wileyj
create image as tarred gzip
a7cd2c4
@wileyj
removing commented line
e23cc93
@wileyj
removing 3rd party action for cleanup
eec2197
@kantai
Merge branch 'master' into chore/master-to-develop
b13350e
@kantai
fix: merge artifact. develop moved unit test execution out of docker
b9b9cb3
@kantai
ci: use current branches workflow definition
113b8e2
@jcnelson
chore: add more test coverage to chat.rs
f7b376d
@obycode obycode requested review from jcnelson, kantai and wileyj and removed request for jcnelson September 6, 2023 21:12
@obycode
Copy link
Contributor Author

obycode commented Sep 6, 2023

Technically, I merged chore/merge-master-to-develop into next, because chore/merge-master-to-develop wasn't yet merged into develop.

@obycode
Copy link
Contributor Author

obycode commented Sep 7, 2023

I will go through and resolve the remaining errors before re-requesting reviews.

@obycode obycode force-pushed the chore/merge-develop-into-next branch 2 times, most recently from b791638 to 2e33b4e Compare September 7, 2023 01:49
@obycode obycode force-pushed the chore/merge-develop-into-next branch from 2e33b4e to e17f094 Compare September 7, 2023 02:03
@obycode obycode requested review from jcnelson, kantai and wileyj and removed request for jcnelson September 7, 2023 02:10
@obycode
Copy link
Contributor Author

obycode commented Sep 7, 2023

Ok, I think we should be ready for review now. Sorry about the false start earlier.

wileyj
wileyj approved these changes Sep 8, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@wileyj wileyj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

shipit

@obycode
Copy link
Contributor Author

obycode commented Sep 8, 2023

@wileyj Thanks for the review. Did I mess anything up with the CI that is preventing the unit-tests from running?

@wileyj
Copy link
Contributor

wileyj commented Sep 8, 2023

@wileyj Thanks for the review. Did I mess anything up with the CI that is preventing the unit-tests from running?

not sure - i looked over the .github files being merged, they all looked correct.
other jobs that are being checked also show up correctly: https://github.com/stacks-network/stacks-blockchain/actions/runs/6104536420/job/16566687096

i have a feeling this is a UI hiccup, because the unit-tests have indeed run successfully for this PR : https://github.com/stacks-network/stacks-blockchain/actions/runs/6104536420/job/16566687096

i would say it's a non-issue, but we can re-run the test to see if it's picked by the UI here.

@wileyj
Copy link
Contributor

wileyj commented Sep 8, 2023

@wileyj Thanks for the review. Did I mess anything up with the CI that is preventing the unit-tests from running?

all good - it was due to the naming of the test that caused the confusion.
in the past, there was a workflow literally named "unit-tests" vs the one that was run here of "Unit Tests" via "CI/Release Tests".

that older name was still a required step for the next branch. i've removed that requirement

@obycode obycode merged commit d714825 into next Sep 10, 2023
1 check failed
@obycode obycode deleted the chore/merge-develop-into-next branch September 10, 2023 02:17
@blockstack-devops
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.

@stacks-network stacks-network locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 10, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers

@wileyj wileyj wileyj approved these changes

@kantai kantai kantai approved these changes

@jcnelson jcnelson Awaiting requested review from jcnelson

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
locked
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
9 participants
@obycode @wileyj @blockstack-devops @kantai @sergey-shandar @pavitthrap @Acaccia @jcnelson @jio-gl