Debugging Workflow Failures: Test Job On Main

Hey everyone, let's dive into a workflow issue we've got brewing on the Expensify/App repository. Specifically, a test / test (job 2) job is failing on the main branch, and we need to figure out why. This is a critical process, so let's get down to business. We need to identify workflow job failures and how to fix them.

The Breakdown: What's Going Wrong?

First off, let's break down the situation. A job called test / test (job 2) within the Process new code merged to main workflow is failing. The link to the failed job is right here: test / test (job 2). This is important because it tells us exactly where the problem lies. The workflow is triggered by merges to the main branch, which means every time new code is merged, this workflow is supposed to run and test it.

The failure was triggered by a pull request (PR) PR Link submitted and merged by @luacmartins. This information is key because it helps us pinpoint the exact code changes that might have caused the issue. The error message is: failure: Process completed with exit code 1. This means that a process within the job exited with an error. Exit code 1 generally indicates a generic error, which could be anything from a syntax error to a failed test.

Basically, every time new code is added to the main branch, it should pass a battery of tests. When these tests fail, it means we have a bug in our code, and we need to fix it. This is important because if the tests fail, it means the code might not work correctly, and it could break other things. Debugging this issue is a top priority, because workflow job failures can block critical updates. This is where we need to find what's broken in the code or the tests, fix it, and make sure that we can keep building and releasing great features.

Why Did the PR Cause the Job to Fail? Understanding the Root Cause

Now, let's get into the nitty-gritty of why this particular pull request might have caused the job to fail. This involves looking closely at the code changes introduced in PR Link. We need to review the changes and try to understand what went wrong. The first step is to check the specific commits included in the PR. What files were modified? What new code was added? Were any tests affected?

After reviewing the changes, we can look at the error logs. These logs usually contain more detailed information about what went wrong during the test execution. We can also try to reproduce the issue locally. The more we learn, the better we will understand the error, which is key to finding the real cause of the problem. This can involve running the tests locally or using a debugging tool to step through the code execution. Also, we will want to determine the type of failure, which could be anything from a syntax error to a failed test. We must examine the test setup and identify the failed test to see what kind of failure it is. We can then focus on how to fix the code to fix the tests.

When we understand the error, it's easier to find the root cause of the problem. For example, if it's a syntax error, the fix might be as simple as correcting a typo. If it's a test failure, we might need to update the test to match the new code, or we might need to fix the code to pass the tests. Debugging this issue is a top priority. Understanding the error message, reviewing the code, and reproducing the issue locally are all critical steps in identifying the root cause of a workflow failure. This knowledge will guide us toward a successful fix.

This is why we need to understand workflow job failures thoroughly.

Addressing the Underlying Issues: A Path to Resolution

Once we've identified the root cause of the failure, the next step is to fix it. How we fix the issue will depend on what we found. Here are some of the typical steps that we must follow:

If the failure is due to a simple syntax error or a typo, the fix is relatively straightforward. We can correct the error in the code, commit the changes, and create a new pull request. Then, we can merge the new code when it passes its tests, or when all is green. It's usually a quick fix. If the failure is a test error, we must look closely at the test that failed and why. If the test is no longer valid for the code, we may need to update the test to match the new code. The fix could involve changing the test input, output, or assertion. If the test reveals a bug in the code, we must fix the underlying bug. This might involve debugging the code, rewriting a specific function, or adding additional tests to cover the edge cases.

Once the fix is ready, we'll want to test it thoroughly. Before merging the fix, we should run all tests to ensure that the issue is resolved and that the changes didn't introduce any new issues. We must also run the workflow again to verify the fix and that the tests are successful. If the workflow still fails, we need to investigate the new error message and repeat the process. Finally, we can merge the fix to the main branch. This is the moment when the problem is solved and we can continue. By addressing these underlying issues, we can ensure that our codebase remains stable and reliable. We can also prevent future failures by implementing preventative measures, such as code reviews and automated testing.

Preventative Measures and Best Practices

To prevent similar issues in the future, it's important to establish and follow best practices. Here are a few things to consider:

First, conduct thorough code reviews. Before merging a pull request, other team members should review the code to identify potential issues, such as syntax errors, logic flaws, and style violations. This is one of the most effective ways to catch problems early in the development cycle. Implement automated testing. We want to implement comprehensive unit tests, integration tests, and end-to-end tests to ensure that all code changes are thoroughly tested. These tests should be run automatically as part of the CI/CD pipeline. Use linters and code formatters. Using these tools automatically checks code for style violations and formatting issues. Code formatting can help prevent simple errors. Encourage collaboration and communication. We want to encourage team members to communicate frequently and openly. Team members should collaborate on design decisions and share their knowledge and experience. And lastly, monitor workflow runs. We want to monitor the health of our workflows, and respond promptly to failures. It is important to fix these workflow job failures.

By following these best practices, we can reduce the likelihood of workflow failures and ensure that our codebase remains healthy and maintainable. This also leads to an overall improvement of the development experience for everyone involved. The more proactive we are, the more productive we will become, which is good for the team and Expensify.