contrived testing of #2970 and #2961 #2972
Closed
Conversation
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
jeremyd2019
changed the title
|
https://github.com/microsoft/windows-rs/actions/runs/8559092947/job/23455148213?pr=2972 shows the failure I was expecting on commit 4b8da8c. https://github.com/microsoft/windows-rs/actions/runs/8559386967/job/23456506812?pr=2972 shows 2d14659 succeed. The diff now is just #2970, plus adding workflow_dispatch to cross.yml (so I could test it easier on my fork rather than waiting for approval to run workflows here) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I want to show that #2970 and #2961 do what they are supposed to do, so I'm making this draft PR demonstrating appling the changes in a different order so that can be seen.
Theoretically, if you had a branch where you reverted #2961 (except for the change to cross.yml), and applied the change from this PR to it, the i686-pc-windows-gnullvm check would fail. Then #2961 would be the "correct" fix for that failure...