test: remove unnecessary status check on test-release-npm#47516
Closed
RafaelGSS wants to merge 1 commit intonodejs:mainfrom
Closed
test: remove unnecessary status check on test-release-npm#47516RafaelGSS wants to merge 1 commit intonodejs:mainfrom
RafaelGSS wants to merge 1 commit intonodejs:mainfrom
Conversation
Signed-off-by: RafaelGSS <rafael.nunu@hotmail.com>
nodejs-github-bot
added
needs-ci
Member
|
cc @nodejs/npm |
github-actions
bot
removed
the
request-ci
Collaborator
Collaborator
Collaborator
RafaelGSS
added
the
fast-track
Contributor
|
Fast-track has been requested by @RafaelGSS. Please 👍 to approve. |
Member
Author
|
I'm requesting |
Qard
approved these changes
Apr 12, 2023
RafaelGSS
added
the
commit-queue
lpinca
approved these changes
Apr 12, 2023
Member
Author
|
The GitHub UI shows a pending CI, but the CI link shows it as finished. Should I land it manually? @nodejs/build |
Member
Yes, if you are reasonably certain that the GitHub widget is showing bad information and CI is in fact complete and successful, you can always land manually. |
36 tasks
Member
Author
|
Landed in e67b944 |
RafaelGSS
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 13, 2023
Signed-off-by: RafaelGSS <rafael.nunu@hotmail.com> PR-URL: #47516 Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <admin@stephenbelanger.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
RafaelGSS
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 13, 2023
Signed-off-by: RafaelGSS <rafael.nunu@hotmail.com> PR-URL: #47516 Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <admin@stephenbelanger.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
RafaelGSS
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 13, 2023
Signed-off-by: RafaelGSS <rafael.nunu@hotmail.com> PR-URL: #47516 Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <admin@stephenbelanger.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
RafaelGSS
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 13, 2023
Signed-off-by: RafaelGSS <rafael.nunu@hotmail.com> PR-URL: #47516 Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <admin@stephenbelanger.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
danielleadams
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 6, 2023
Signed-off-by: RafaelGSS <rafael.nunu@hotmail.com> PR-URL: #47516 Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <admin@stephenbelanger.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
MoLow
pushed a commit
to MoLow/node
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 6, 2023
Signed-off-by: RafaelGSS <rafael.nunu@hotmail.com> PR-URL: nodejs#47516 Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <admin@stephenbelanger.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
panva
removed
the
commit-queue
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
8 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.
test-release-npmis failing on #47381 and it seems related to #43716. However, this asserting seems unnecesary, so rather than adjust it (either onnpmside or node.js) sounds reasonable to remove that check.However, it doesn't mean there's no bug in that change. It seems
process.exitCodeisn't considered whenprocess.exit()is called withundefined. cc: @daeyeon