-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 156
mi355x dsv4 retry #1160
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
Merged
Merged
mi355x dsv4 retry #1160
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
🟡 The newly added perf-changelog entry sets
pr-link: .../pull/1159, but this is PR #1160 ("mi355x dsv4 retry"); #1159 is the prior already-merged retrigger PR (commit d578b7e). The entry was copy-pasted from the unlinked block above without bumping the number — following the convention used for the analogous retrigger pattern at lines 1799-1805 (where #1148 self-references), this should point topull/1160.Extended reasoning...
What the bug is
The new
perf-changelog.yamlentry added at lines 1830-1836 sets:But this PR is #1160 ("mi355x dsv4 retry"), not #1159. PR #1159 ("retrigger mi355x dsv4") is the prior, already-merged retrigger PR — see commit
d578b7eingit log. The new entry was clearly copy-pasted from the unlinked sibling block at lines 1823-1828 (which belongs to #1159) and only hadpr-linkappended, without updating the PR number.Why this is a bug (convention violation)
The established convention in this file is that each entry's
pr-linkpoints to its own PR. The directly analogous retrigger pattern is at lines 1799-1805:Per
git show --stat 694f206, PR #1148 was a retrigger PR that only modifiedperf-changelog.yaml(no recipe changes — just adding the duplicate linked entry), and itspr-linkself-references #1148 even though the actual recipe changes were made in PR #1147. This PR (#1160) is structurally identical — it's a retrigger of #1159's recipe changes that only adds a duplicate changelog entry — but usespull/1159instead ofpull/1160, breaking the precedent.Step-by-step proof
git logshows commitd578b7e= "retrigger mi355x dsv4 (retrigger mi355x dsv4 #1159)" — already merged.pr-link: ...pull/1159.main, added by retrigger mi355x dsv4 #1159) contain the sameconfig-keys/descriptionas lines 1830-1836 but with nopr-linkfield — the new block is a copy-paste of that prior unlinked block.https://github.com/SemiAnalysisAI/InferenceX/pull/1160.Impact and fix
Severity is nit:
perf-changelog.yamlis documentation/metadata only — no runtime or functional impact. The misleading link still resolves to a real (related) PR, so a reader can still find their way, just not directly. But it does break traceability and the file's self-consistency. Fix: change1159→1160on line 1836.