- 
                Notifications
    You must be signed in to change notification settings 
- Fork 14
Fix listing of reprod dirs #117
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
Conversation
| bot: build repo:eessi.io-2025.06-software instance:eessi-bot-mc-aws for:arch=x86_64/amd/zen2 | 
| New job on instance  
 | 
| Used the wrong version of the easystack, let's try that again. bot: build repo:eessi.io-2025.06-software instance:eessi-bot-mc-aws for:arch=x86_64/amd/zen2 | 
| New job on instance  
 | 
| Ah, and used the wrong version in the build command... bot: build repo:eessi.io-2023.06-software instance:eessi-bot-mc-aws for:arch=x86_64/amd/zen2 | 
| New job on instance  
 | 
| Argh, 2023.06 didn't have reprod dirs. Switching back to 2025.06... bot: build repo:eessi.io-2025.06-software instance:eessi-bot-mc-aws for:arch=x86_64/amd/zen2 | 
| New job on instance  
 | 
| Finally, the tarball listing in #117 (comment) shows the issue: Now fixing the issue by checking the number of fields (instead of rows; this is a bug) in the bot's  | 
| Testing the fix... bot: build repo:eessi.io-2025.06-software instance:eessi-bot-mc-aws for:arch=x86_64/amd/zen2 | 
| New job on instance  
 | 
| That worked! Removing the easystack used for testing, this should be good to go. Doesn't require a build/deploy. | 
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.
Lgtm!
I noticed a few times that the listing of tarballs sometimes contains the reprod root dir as well, e.g.:
It should not show
SciPy-bundle/2024.05-gfbf-2024a/, onlySciPy-bundle/2024.05-gfbf-2024a/20251028_135038UTC. As you can guess from this example, it only happens when there's more than a single application in the tarball. I'll reproduce that here first, then add a fix to test it.