Fix RubyGems flaky test
What does this MR do and why?
An attempt to fix the flaky rubygems test #366099 (closed). It will be important to keep artifacts around to check a few important things.
MR acceptance checklist
This checklist encourages us to confirm any changes have been analyzed to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.
-
I have evaluated the MR acceptance checklist for this MR.
Merge request reports
Activity
changed milestone to %15.7
assigned to @svistas
added sectionops label
- A deleted user
added QA label
1 Message CHANGELOG missing: If you want to create a changelog entry for GitLab FOSS, add the
Changelog
trailer to the commit message you want to add to the changelog.If you want to create a changelog entry for GitLab EE, also add the
EE: true
trailer to your commit message.If this merge request doesn't need a CHANGELOG entry, feel free to ignore this message.
Reviewer roulette
Changes that require review have been detected!
Please refer to the table below for assigning reviewers and maintainers suggested by Danger in the specified category:
Category Reviewer Maintainer QA Harsha Muralidhar (
@hmuralidhar
) (UTC+5.5, 3.5 hours ahead of@svistas
)Chloe Liu (
@chloeliu
) (UTC-8, 10 hours behind@svistas
)To spread load more evenly across eligible reviewers, Danger has picked a candidate for each review slot, based on their timezone. Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.
To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines. Please consider assigning a reviewer or maintainer who is a domain expert in the area of the merge request.
Once you've decided who will review this merge request, assign them as a reviewer! Danger does not automatically notify them for you.
If needed, you can retry the
danger-review
job that generated this comment.Generated by
DangerAllure report
allure-report-publisher
generated test report!e2e-package-and-test:
test report for f90c7f70expand test summary
+--------------------------------------------------------------+ | suites summary | +---------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result | +---------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | Package | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | ✅ | +---------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | Total | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | ✅ | +---------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
marked the checklist item I have evaluated the MR acceptance checklist for this MR. as completed
requested review from @hmuralidhar
- Resolved by Sanad Liaquat
@hmuralidhar can I have a review in this small change here? Thanks in advance!
removed review request for @hmuralidhar
@sliaquat, did you forget to run a pipeline before you merged this work? Based on our code review process, if the latest pipeline finished more than 2 hours ago, you should:
- Ensure the merge request is not in Draft status.
- Start a pipeline (especially important for Community contribution merge requests).
- Set the merge request to merge when pipeline succeeds.
This is a guideline, not a rule. Please consider replying to this comment for transparency.
This message was generated automatically. You're welcome to improve it.
mentioned in commit 4071a11c
added workflowstaging-canary label
added workflowstaging label and removed workflowstaging-canary label
added workflowcanary label and removed workflowstaging label
added workflowproduction label and removed workflowcanary label
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#175 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#176 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#177 (closed)
added releasedcandidate label
added releasedpublished label and removed releasedcandidate label
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#178 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#180 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#184 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#190 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#194 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#196 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#197 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#200 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#202 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#204 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#207 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#210 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#215 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#217 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#218 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#221 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#223 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#225 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#226 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#227 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#229 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#231 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#232 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#234 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#235 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#236 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#237 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/pipeline-triage#238 (closed)