Skip to content

Conversation

nirosys
Copy link
Contributor

@nirosys nirosys commented Oct 8, 2025

Issue #, if available: n/a

Description of changes:
This PR updates the actions that we use in our workflows. It also migrates the rust actions that haven't been maintained for a couple years.

Additionally, this PR addresses an issue that resulted in some steps in the workflow not executing due to a bug in how the OS name was being handled.


By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 8, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 78.32%. Comparing base (3aaccc3) to head (b8f0dac).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1006   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   78.32%   78.32%           
=======================================
  Files         138      138           
  Lines       34108    34108           
  Branches    34108    34108           
=======================================
  Hits        26716    26716           
  Misses       5317     5317           
  Partials     2075     2075           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 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.

@nirosys
Copy link
Contributor Author

nirosys commented Oct 8, 2025

Errors due -D warnings being set in the new action for rust toolchain setup. With the default feature, all experimental-reader-writer and experimental-ion-1-1 code is rendered pub(crate), which some then goes unused.

There is also a large amount of rustfmt issues since the rustfmt step has been broken due to OS name filter.

@jobarr-amzn
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like the rustfmt check is unhappy.

@nirosys
Copy link
Contributor Author

nirosys commented Oct 9, 2025

Looks like the rustfmt check is unhappy.

Very unhappy, lots of stuff that seems to not have been run through rustfmt before. I'll go through and make it happy and drop a .git-blame-ignore-revs so it doesn't pollute the history too much.

@nirosys
Copy link
Contributor Author

nirosys commented Oct 9, 2025

I'm going to follow up with a different PR to address the rustfmt changes, that way I can squash these changes and have the rustfmt changes stay cleanly separated to be used in .git-blame-ignore-revs.

@nirosys nirosys marked this pull request as ready for review October 9, 2025 20:24
@jobarr-amzn
Copy link
Contributor

TIL about .git-blame-ignore-revs- neat!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants