-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.3k
Update branding for 5.0.11 #36236
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
Update branding for 5.0.11 #36236
Conversation
In addition to @BrennanConroy's |
We might need #30253 |
|
Think we need to update selenium |
That's not doing it:
@sebastienros @javiercn @SteveSandersonMS Components E2E tests are failing here, what did we do to fix them in main other than the Selenium update? Edit: hold the phone on that, might have been due to my bad merge conflict resolution |
This PR is missing the selenium.config file change. @HaoK did you submit a backport of my PR to 5.0? |
Combining this with #36231 |
I see the PR is still open #36231 |
Thanks @wtgodbe |
Is there more we need? I don't see anything obvious in
|
Didn't see these during my investigations |
Should we go back to 5a6101c and just skip Components E2E for now? What's the best way to do that? |
Is this more complicated than #36235 simply because we introduced Selenium tests in release/5.0❔ Do you need any help here from anyone❔ |
Yes, selenium is the blocker here. I think whatever started causing 6.0 selenium tests to fail is also happening here, and I'm trying to piece together the right fixes from what we've done in |
Looks like the current commit did work. I checked the tests output and confirmed that the Components E2E tests did run here and they all passed. So, you might be fine as-is now! It wouldn't be easy to backport all the changes I did for E2E test reliability to 5.0. For example, in 6.0 their CI run now happens on Linux in a separate pipeline to ensure there isn't anything else happening on the same machine at the same time. I expect making such sweeping changes to the 5.0 servicing branch would be out of scope. |
No description provided.