Skip to content

Conversation

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request is for the next release as v1.111.5 created by tagpr. Merging it will tag v1.111.5 to the merge commit and create a GitHub release.

You can modify this branch "tagpr-from-v1.111.4" directly before merging if you want to change the next version number or other files for the release.

How to change the next version as you like

There are two ways to do it.

  • Version file
    • Edit and commit the version file specified in the .tagpr configuration file to describe the next version
    • If you want to use another version file, edit the configuration file.
  • Labels convention
    • Add labels to this pull request like "tagpr:minor" or "tagpr:major"
    • If no conventional labels are added, the patch version is incremented as is.

What's Changed

Full Changelog: v1.111.4...v1.111.5

ninjinkun and others added 25 commits August 19, 2025 15:49
Update CI config files for Launchable CLI v1 branch
It looks like c41d9a6 removed the
`raise_for_status` check, without which error message from the server
won't be reported, even as a warning.

This breaks the subset call in case of the server failure, since
`res.json()` looks as if it's returning an empty subset
[AIENG-196] Add the new command for the early flake detection
Extend --link flag to support explicit kinds
Remove a useless test - HttpClientTest#test_reason
[AIENG-230] defined a switch to control the test selection behavior
@kohsuke
Copy link
Contributor

kohsuke commented Sep 16, 2025

@Konboi tagpr seems to be insisting to create a release against the main branch, even though .tagpr is clearly configured to do so against v1. I'm confused.

@kohsuke
Copy link
Contributor

kohsuke commented Sep 16, 2025

OTOH "files changed" is only listing two commits. Hmm...

ninjinkun and others added 28 commits September 16, 2025 22:40
The caller side was not removed. Oof.
…uild-provenance-2.x

Update actions/attest-build-provenance action to v2.4.0
It looks like c41d9a6 removed the
`raise_for_status` check, without which error message from the server
won't be reported, even as a warning.

This breaks the subset call in case of the server failure, since
`res.json()` looks as if it's returning an empty subset
@kohsuke kohsuke closed this Sep 17, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants