Skip to content

[No QA] Treat existing release as success in deploy create-release retry loop - #94213

Merged
blimpich merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
blimpich-fixDeployFalseReleaseFailure
Jun 26, 2026
Merged

[No QA] Treat existing release as success in deploy create-release retry loop#94213
blimpich merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
blimpich-fixDeployFalseReleaseFailure

Conversation

@blimpich

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

A transient 502 from GitHub's API during the 🚀 Create release 🚀 step can create the release server-side while still returning an error to the runner. The retry loop then hits 422 Release.tag_name already exists on every subsequent attempt and exits non-zero, so the deploy is marked failed even though the release was created successfully.

This makes the create-release retry loop treat an "already exists" outcome as success: after a failed gh release create, it checks whether the release now exists and breaks out of the loop if so, rather than retrying until it gives up.

Reported in Slack: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C07J32337/p1782154845057649

Fixed Issues

$ #94211
PROPOSAL:

Tests

This is a change to a GitHub Actions deploy workflow; there is no in-app behavior to manually test.

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — CI deploy workflow change with no app-facing behavior.

QA Steps

N/A — CI deploy workflow change only.

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

  • I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
    • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
    • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
    • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
    • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
    • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
    • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
  • I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
    • Android: Native
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb Safari
    • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
  • I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
    • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
    • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
    • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
    • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
  • If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
  • I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
  • If any new file was added I verified that:
    • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
  • If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
    • A similar style doesn't already exist
    • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
  • If new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
    • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
    • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
  • If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
  • If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
  • If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
  • If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
  • If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
  • I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
  • If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

N/A — CI deploy workflow change.

Android: mWeb Chrome

N/A — CI deploy workflow change.

iOS: Native

N/A — CI deploy workflow change.

iOS: mWeb Safari

N/A — CI deploy workflow change.

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

N/A — CI deploy workflow change.

– written by Claude on Ben's behalf

@blimpich
blimpich marked this pull request as ready for review June 22, 2026 19:58
@blimpich
blimpich requested a review from a team as a code owner June 22, 2026 19:58
@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot requested a review from rojiphil June 22, 2026 19:58
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@rojiphil Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team June 22, 2026 19:58
@blimpich
blimpich requested review from Julesssss and roryabraham and removed request for rojiphil June 22, 2026 19:58
Comment thread .github/workflows/deploy.yml Outdated
Julesssss
Julesssss previously approved these changes Jun 25, 2026
@blimpich
blimpich merged commit d79bcf9 into main Jun 26, 2026
13 of 15 checks passed
@blimpich
blimpich deleted the blimpich-fixDeployFalseReleaseFailure branch June 26, 2026 19:20
@OSBotify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

@OSBotify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/blimpich in version: 9.4.21-2 🚀

platform result
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅

@OSBotify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.21-9 🚀

platform result
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants