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

Fix reference not a tree #14175

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 25, 2022
Merged

Fix reference not a tree #14175

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 25, 2022

Conversation

kim0
Copy link
Contributor

@kim0 kim0 commented Jul 14, 2022

Resolves brave/brave-browser#19683

Submitter Checklist:

  • I confirm that no security/privacy review is needed, or that I have requested one
  • There is a ticket for my issue
  • Used Github auto-closing keywords in the PR description above
  • Wrote a good PR/commit description
  • Squashed any review feedback or "fixup" commits before merge, so that history is a record of what happened in the repo, not your PR
  • Added appropriate labels (QA/Yes or QA/No; release-notes/include or release-notes/exclude; OS/...) to the associated issue
  • Checked the PR locally: npm run test -- brave_browser_tests, npm run test -- brave_unit_tests, npm run lint, npm run gn_check, npm run tslint
  • Ran git rebase master (if needed)

Reviewer Checklist:

  • A security review is not needed, or a link to one is included in the PR description
  • New files have MPL-2.0 license header
  • Adequate test coverage exists to prevent regressions
  • Major classes, functions and non-trivial code blocks are well-commented
  • Changes in component dependencies are properly reflected in gn
  • Code follows the style guide
  • Test plan is specified in PR before merging

After-merge Checklist:

Test Plan:

@kim0 kim0 added the CI/skip Do not run CI builds (except noplatform) label Jul 14, 2022
@kim0 kim0 requested a review from a team July 14, 2022 08:54
@kim0 kim0 requested a review from bsclifton as a code owner July 14, 2022 08:54
@kim0 kim0 self-assigned this Jul 14, 2022
@mihaiplesa mihaiplesa requested a review from wknapik July 14, 2022 08:56
Copy link
Member

@bsclifton bsclifton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! We should define a manual test plan to verify

I think it would look something like this:

  1. Have an offline node (not servicing CI requests) which has uplift.py on it. On purpose, don't fetch the remote (let it be out of date)
  2. Create a branch and merge on regular CI (deleting after you merge)
  3. Run the uplift script against branch in step 2
  4. It should find the branch new, because it's doing a fetch

kim0 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 21, 2022
Signed-off-by: Ahmed Kamal <email.ahmedkamal@googlemail.com>
@kim0 kim0 force-pushed the fix-reference-not-a-tree branch from 1bd0ca8 to 8d1e79b Compare July 21, 2022 12:44
@kim0 kim0 merged commit 790e23a into master Jul 25, 2022
@kim0 kim0 deleted the fix-reference-not-a-tree branch July 25, 2022 13:30
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 1.43.x - Nightly milestone Jul 25, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CI/skip Do not run CI builds (except noplatform)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Temporarily restore PR branch, if deleted, in uplift.py
3 participants