Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update //build to m114.0.5735.331. #2100

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 11, 2024

Conversation

aee-google
Copy link
Contributor

b/313662336

@aee-google aee-google force-pushed the 114-update-build branch 12 times, most recently from 6394d51 to cd688cf Compare December 19, 2023 02:08
@aee-google aee-google force-pushed the 114-update-build branch 7 times, most recently from f31a0e5 to 27cc798 Compare December 28, 2023 23:22
@aee-google aee-google marked this pull request as ready for review December 28, 2023 23:22
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 29, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (fc372aa) 58.55% compared to head (ccd55f0) 58.53%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2100      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   58.55%   58.53%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files        1909     1907       -2     
  Lines       94580    94567      -13     
==========================================
- Hits        55385    55351      -34     
- Misses      39195    39216      +21     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@andrewsavage1
Copy link
Contributor

Could you please retry the failed tests to ensure they're flakes? Also please test on device and internally

Copy link
Contributor

@andrewsavage1 andrewsavage1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are so many things outside of //build changing in this PR? The update should only affect that directory and possibly direct references to it, but there's a lot of other things going on here

Change-Id: Id47a9e956f64ee29344e5d6da5d349bb5d951090
Change-Id: I3ead4d9a1c5f4af2444ab9199b04774ab18e100c
@aee-google aee-google merged commit fd2b36a into youtube:main Jan 11, 2024
371 of 376 checks passed
@aee-google aee-google deleted the 114-update-build branch January 11, 2024 20:17
@aee-google aee-google restored the 114-update-build branch January 12, 2024 20:14
@aee-google aee-google deleted the 114-update-build branch January 12, 2024 20:14
Copy link
Contributor

@dahlstrom-g dahlstrom-g left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

buildflag_header("chromecast_buildflags") {
header = "chromecast_buildflags.h"

flags = [ "IS_CHROMECAST=$is_chromecast" ]
flags = [
"IS_CHROMECAST=$is_chromecast",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see this in the source revision—
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/114.0.5735.331/build/BUILD.gn#42
— but I see it's used in media which is of course at a different revision.

If would be much better to update Chromium versions synchronously
rather than having subtrees at various versions.
I hope we'll try to pivot in that direction before too long,
toward decreasing rather than continuing to increase dispersion.

help='Value of gn $root_build_dir')
parser.add_argument('platform',
choices=['iphoneos', 'iphonesimulator', 'macosx',
'appletvos'])
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see this in the source revision:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/114.0.5735.331/build/config/apple/sdk_info.py#137
I also can't tell if it's used anywhere. Is it?

If we've added this for a reason
it would be good to have a comment explaining it.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

# or "softfp". An empty string means to use the default one for the
# arm_version.
arm_float_abi = ""
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've learned indenting upstream code tends to cause needless conflicts.

} else {
toolchain_is_component_build = is_component_build
}

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

} else {
command = "$asm -MMD -MF $depfile ${rebuild_string}{{defines}} {{include_dirs}} {{asmflags}}${extra_asmflags} -c {{source}} -o {{output}}"
command = "$asm $md -MF $depfile ${rebuild_string}{{defines}} {{include_dirs}} {{asmflags}}${extra_asmflags} -c {{source}} -o {{output}}"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ditto about indentation

relative_path = relative_paths.get(absolute_path, absolute_path)
if absolute_path == relative_path:
return line
return relative_path + line[len(absolute_path):]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Lines 40–48 appear to duplicate lines 49–57.

self.assertEqual(1, len(actual))
self.assertEqual('mojom_tests.parse.ast_unittest.ASTTest.testNodeBase',
actual[0].GetName())
self.assertEqual(base_test_result.ResultType.SKIP, actual[0].GetType())
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Lines 283–313 appear to duplicate lines 314–344.

self.assertTrue('PASS' not in results_dict['num_failures_by_type']
or results_dict['num_failures_by_type']['PASS'] == 0)
self.assertIn('SKIP', results_dict['num_failures_by_type'])
self.assertEqual(1, results_dict['num_failures_by_type']['SKIP'])
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Lines 244–271 appear to duplicate lines 272–299.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants