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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
fix: UpdateContainerPins wipes containers section on every gh aw update run #41262
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: UpdateContainerPins wipes containers section on every gh aw update run #41262
Changes from all commits
0867a61e28013c92bcab7ae0afdcc79002f95d41feFile filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Jump to
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
[/tdd] This file assertion always passes regardless of whether the bug is present.
cache.Save()is never called in this test, soactionsLockPathstill contains the content written during setup — the file was never modified.💡 How to make this assertion meaningful
Option A — remove it: the
pruned == 0check andGetContainerPinassertions already cover the invariant at the in-memory level, which is where the bug manifests.Option B — make it a real disk-level guard by adding a Save+reload cycle:
This would catch regressions where pruning happens correctly in-memory but Save serialises the wrong state.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Trivially-true assertion provides no signal:
cache.Save()is never called in this test, so the file on disk is byte-for-byte identical to whatos.WriteFilewrote at setup — the assertion cannot fail under any code path exercised here.💡 Details
The comment says "Verify the lock file is unchanged", implying a post-save check, but since
cache.Save()is never called the file trivially cannot have changed. The actual regression (pruning firing when it should not) is already fully caught at:When
pruned == 0the cache is not dirty, so even ifSave()were called it would be a no-op. Theassert.Containsadds noise without coverage. Consider removing it, or — better — follow the pattern inTestUpdateContainerPins_PrunesStaleEntriesby callingcache.Save()and then reading the file back to meaningfully verify the on-disk state.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.