Do not consider in progress requests with no manifests when checking build requests #1604
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
When we have an in progress manifest generation (either build or release), it will not have any manifests produced, so if a request gets stuck in progress, it will stay like that without any manifests. So the current attempt at filtering of build manifest requests will accidentally include "in progress" release requests in its check for if the last build manifest was successful.
This means when we have a stuck-in-progress release, the current filter isn't able to do a check if it's a build manifest and by default considers it a build manifest to check if it was successful. This change should throw out the in progress requests from consideration, so it will catch the one before and check if that one was successful.
This would hopefully allow us to re-do release manifest generations that have been stuck in progress if their last build manifest request was successful.
Edge case to consider
If it gets triggered when there's build manifest still in progress, it would ignore it and still do the last successful one. This makes sense to me, even if it could be undesirable. The service will work with what it has.
Sorry if none of this text makes sense 🤣 I hope the code change itself gives more context