Skip to content

ci: prove bug regressions on destination#2242

Open
kprokopenko wants to merge 2 commits into
masterfrom
ci/regression-proof-bug
Open

ci: prove bug regressions on destination#2242
kprokopenko wants to merge 2 commits into
masterfrom
ci/regression-proof-bug

Conversation

@kprokopenko

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

What changed

Add a regression-proof workflow for bug-fix pull requests.

Behavior

  • The job runs only when the PR has the bug label.
  • It extracts changed *_test.go files and applies only that test patch to the destination revision.
  • It runs the destination test suite and requires at least one concrete Go test event with Action == "fail".
  • Build and package-level failures do not count as regression evidence.
  • Source-branch success remains covered by the regular test checks.

The workflow listens to opened, synchronize, reopened, and labeled; removing a label does not start a run.

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings July 14, 2026 18:08

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copilot encountered an error and was unable to review this pull request. You can try again by re-requesting a review.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

summary

Inferred base version: v3.144.0
Suggested version: v3.144.1

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jul 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 75.25%. Comparing base (69cd174) to head (8236449).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2242      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   75.28%   75.25%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         443      443              
  Lines       45935    45935              
==========================================
- Hits        34580    34567      -13     
- Misses       9400     9409       +9     
- Partials     1955     1959       +4     
Flag Coverage Δ
experiment 75.15% <ø> (-0.07%) ⬇️
go-1.21.x 72.10% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
go-1.26.x 75.23% <ø> (-0.05%) ⬇️
integration 56.73% <ø> (-0.06%) ⬇️
macOS 45.18% <ø> (ø)
ubuntu 75.24% <ø> (-0.04%) ⬇️
unit 45.18% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
windows 45.18% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
ydb-24.4 56.26% <ø> (-0.08%) ⬇️
ydb-edge 56.58% <ø> (-0.06%) ⬇️
ydb-latest 56.44% <ø> (-0.06%) ⬇️
ydb-nightly 75.15% <ø> (-0.07%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.

@kprokopenko kprokopenko added no slo bug Something isn't working labels Jul 14, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

bug Something isn't working no slo

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants