fix: re-enable cypress checks #32008
Conversation
mistercrunch
requested review from
sadpandajoe,
geido,
eschutho,
rusackas and
betodealmeida
as code owners
![korbit-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/322216?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've completed my review and didn't find any issues.
Need a new review? Comment
/korbit-reviewon this PR and I'll review your latest changes.Korbit Guide: Usage and Customization
Interacting with Korbit
- You can manually ask Korbit to review your PR using the
/korbit-reviewcommand in a comment at the root of your PR.- You can ask Korbit to generate a new PR description using the
/korbit-generate-pr-descriptioncommand in any comment on your PR.- Too many Korbit comments? I can resolve all my comment threads if you use the
/korbit-resolvecommand in any comment on your PR.- Chat with Korbit on issues we post by tagging @korbit-ai in your reply.
- Help train Korbit to improve your reviews by giving a 👍 or 👎 on the comments Korbit posts.
Customizing Korbit
- Check out our docs on how you can make Korbit work best for you and your team.
- Customize Korbit for your organization through the Korbit Console.
Current Korbit Configuration
General Settings
Setting Value Review Schedule Automatic excluding drafts Max Issue Count 10 Automatic PR Descriptions ❌ Issue Categories
Category Enabled Naming ✅ Database Operations ✅ Documentation ✅ Logging ✅ Error Handling ✅ Systems and Environment ✅ Objects and Data Structures ✅ Readability and Maintainability ✅ Asynchronous Processing ✅ Design Patterns ✅ Third-Party Libraries ✅ Performance ✅ Security ✅ Functionality ✅ Feedback and Support
Note
Korbit Pro is free for open source projects 🎉
Looking to add Korbit to your team? Get started with a free 2 week trial here
I got a bit confused and reckless on #31858, when I disabled many cypress tests, many of which are or may be flaky at times, but in this instance were probably triggered by some real issues in that PR. Renabling them all and will monitor PRs and master merges to re-disable the ones flaking as needed
mistercrunch
force-pushed
the
reenable-cypress-checks
branch
from
1107221 to
e30a2e4
Compare
|
@mistercrunch This seems to have broken CI. Should we revert? 
|
|
Oh yes, this is due to checks being different on I little while back we decided to only use the Cypress All this started when we unknowingly accumulated significant costs related to our high usage last year, and decided to try and shut down the bulk of the load. |
This reverts commit b12f515.
|
Revert is here -> #32045 |
I got a bit confused and reckless on #31858 while dealing with a sizable merge conflict, proceeded to disable many cypress tests, many of which are or may be flaky at times, but in this instance were probably triggered by some real issues in that PR.
Renabling them all and will monitor PRs and master merges to re-disable the ones flaking as needed.
Note that prior to the PR issues I created on #31858, there were all sorts of cypress issues that we couldn't pinpoint to any particular merges, and that led a few of us to make to call to "disable all flaking tests" with the intent to fix or replace with unit tests:
Seems there are other new issues with the way we goup/report tests as well. Still needs weeding.