feat: roxctl --use-current-k8s-context to trust central-tls/ca.pem

Description
This PR allows roxctl --use-current-k8s-context to trust the central certificate authority.
Checklist

[x] Investigated and inspected CI test results
[ ] Unit test and regression tests added
[ ] Evaluated and added CHANGELOG entry if required
[ ] Determined and documented upgrade steps
[ ] Documented user facing changes (create PR based on openshift/openshift-docs and merge into rhacs-docs)

If any of these don't apply, please comment below.
Testing Performed
Here I tell how I validated my change
Manual testing, bats.
Reminder for reviewers
In addition to reviewing code here, reviewers must also review testing and request further testing in case the
performed one does not seem sufficient. As a reviewer, you must not approve the change until you understand the
performed testing and you are satisfied with it.

/retest


Datepicker duplicate month

[x] I have searched the Issues to see if this bug has already been reported
[x] I have tested the latest version

Steps to reproduce

Select January 31
Click on the month header to select another month
It will show duplicated "Mar"

Current behavior

I opened a PR
https://github.com/themesberg/flowbite-react/pull/1457

I am having the same issue, please fix this 🙏
In any month on date
30th duplicate => Mar
31st duplicate => Mar, May, Jul, Oct, Dec

Hi @rluders thanks for your help,
is there any plan to release this fix?
cc: @fiqryq

I think that we should have a new release soon. @SutuSebastian is updating some dependencies, and I think that as soon he finishes it we may have a new release.


NRT testing suite

Adding a testing suite for near real time data (year 2022):

103-792
103-794
114-992

More examples for a more multifarious testing suite

set some (c1, LZ) values to 1
set all (`core, YR) values to 2022 for all near real time data (see above)

Done in https://github.com/glamod/cdm-testdata/releases/tag/v2024.06.07


Add PER token to orakl price feed (klay denominated) until 04/17

should be pulled from klayswap dex fetcher
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/perproject/

https://twitter.com/OraklNetwork/status/1780412460761243987


Dimension of feature embedding + full_res_stem

Dear @tfzhou ,
I find your work really interesting - thanks a lot (also to your team).
In your paper you state that you use an

Using the HRNet backbone I need to set the full_res_stem env variable to get an embedding of the same dimension as the input image. Else, there is an interpolation logic to upsample the feature-embeddings, which seems to happen for any use of the ResNet backbone.
I was wondering if you use the full_res_stem env variable for your stated results? Also, did you observe a performance difference when the feature embedding dimensions < input dimensions?
Thanks
Oliver

@oliverester Thanks your interest. I did not remember that I used the variable full_res_stem. For HRNet, the feature (spatial) dimension is 1/4 the size of the input image, which is same as the resnet backbone (with dilated convolutions).


zephyr: Use shared multi heap in wifi adapter

Allow to use the shared multi heap in the wifi
related heap allocations.

@marekmatej Is this working? If not, can you DNM or make it a draft?

@marekmatej Is this working? If not, can you DNM or make it a draft?

It does not work, I checked and ESP hangs forever.

@marekmatej Is this working? If not, can you DNM or make it a draft?

It does not work, I checked and ESP hangs forever.

This is part of SPIRAM wifi heap, which isn't finished. I shouldn't submit the PR sorry for the confusion folks!

@marekmatej Is this working? If not, can you DNM or make it a draft?

It does not work, I checked and ESP hangs forever.

This is part of SPIRAM wifi heap, which isn't finished. I shouldn't submit the PR sorry for the confusion folks!

Btw are you going to keep working on this in the nearest feature?


WIP: bump of langchain version

Closes #503

I would suggest to let Renovate to bump the version. @Gregory-Pereira amended the configuration not to bump the version. See the file renovate.json.


Have issue on running "memgpt quickstart" or "MemGPT run"

Describe the bug
A clear and concise description of what the bug is.
$ memgpt quickstart
Config file not found at /home/ec2-user/anaconda3/envs/JupyterSystemEnv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/memgpt/cli/../../configs/memgpt_hosted.json
$MemGPT run

Please describe your setup

[ ] How did you install memgpt?

pip install pymemgpt? pip install pymemgpt-nightly? git clone?

pip install pymemgpt

[ ] Describe your setup

What's your OS (Windows/MacOS/Linux)?  MacOS
How are you running memgpt? (cmd.exe/Powershell/Anaconda Shell/Terminal). Powershell

Screenshots
If applicable, add screenshots to help explain your problem.
Additional context
Add any other context about the problem here.
MemGPT Config
Please attach your ~/.memgpt/config file or copy past it below.
Can't find this one when I pip install pymemgpt and memgpt quickstart.  After run memgpt configure, it then can find this file, but still experience the issue above.

If you're not using OpenAI, please provide additional information on your local LLM setup:
Local LLM details
If you are trying to run MemGPT with local LLMs, please provide the following information:

[ ] The exact model you're trying to use (e.g. dolphin-2.1-mistral-7b.Q6_K.gguf)
[ ] The local LLM backend you are using (web UI? LM Studio?)
[ ] Your hardware for the local LLM backend (local computer? operating system? remote RunPod?)

https://github.com/cpacker/MemGPT/issues/1341#issuecomment-2132694838

A hack around this problem is to do memgpt quickstart --latest instead -- but will fix this bug soon sorry!


Fix link to config docs in generated files

Should link to https://github.com/jbrunton/gflows/wiki/Configuration

Fixed in #124


fix: update config.ts to reflect config/default.json

this may bork the build if it has the wrong config file set up


Ez leka/local dev

No change in main-stream product. Strictly dev environment convenience.
Configure docker and podman to use development build of run and km (build/opt/kontain/bin)
make install-dev-runtime RUNTIME=<give it a distinct name>

To remove this configuration:
make uninstall-dev-runtime RUNTIME=<name from prev step>

Now docker and podman will try to use krun and km when the "--runtime your-runtime-name" argument is supplied with "docker run" or "podman run".
Without --runtime, runc will be the default container runtime.
To test payloads with development runtime
make -C payloads validate-runenv-image RUNTIME=your-runtime-name

It looks like the azure and aws runners need the jq program added to their images.
jq-1.6-10.fc34.x86_64
or whatever is appropriate for those versions of linux.
One other set of tests is failing for reasons I don't understand.

I think the place to add jq to the list of packages is in:
./cloud/scripts/L0-image-provision.sh

This statement:
apt-get install --yes -q git make makeself gcc linux-headers-$(uname -r) \
                         docker-ce docker-ce-cli containerd.io azure-cli \
                         vagrant packer virtualbox


Databox stable/2019-09-01 API Version

Latest improvements:
MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub  - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.

Contribution checklist:

[ ] I have reviewed the documentation for the workflow.
[ ] Validation tools were run on swagger spec(s) and have all been fixed in this PR.
[ ] The OpenAPI Hub was used for checking validation status and next steps.

ARM API Review Checklist

[ ] Service team MUST add the "WaitForARMFeedback" label if the management plane API changes fall into one of the below categories.
adding/removing APIs.
adding/removing properties.
adding/removing API-version.
adding a new service in Azure.

Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs.

[ ] If you are blocked on ARM review and want to get the PR merged urgently, please get the ARM oncall for reviews (RP Manifest Approvers team under Azure Resource Manager service) from IcM and reach out to them.
Please follow the link to find more details on API review process.

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

Signing off from ARM side.

HI @sashanm  is this PR ready to merge?

@yungezz  Yes. It is ready to merge


ProxyOnce Mode to Consider Responses Saved in Data Dir

I'd like to propose that when starting/restarting mountebank with a proxy stub in proxyOnce mode in conjunction with the --datadir option, the proxy stub would recognize the responses saved in the data dir (which may be from a previous run with the same stub) and not proxy and record/overwrite them again.
This would allow one to put the data dir under version control and periodically re-run mountebank with a particular config file containing a proxy stub against a list of requests to record traffic for (which may grow over time) without changing the responses recorded for requests which have already been captured before.
One could then run mb save against the updated data dir to generate a new playback file containing any newly recorded responses as usual.
If one really wanted a previously recorded response to be 'updated', they could just delete the saved response(s) from the data dir manually and rerun mountebank in record mode with the same config file against the same list of requests.
As an idea: Perhaps the predicate generator on the proxy stub could be used to implement this functionality without adding any new options / stub configuration to mountebank?
Referencing a bit of documentation from http://www.mbtest.org/docs/commandLine:
(From the mb start options section)

The root directory for persisting all imposter changes. When used, mountebank will start all imposters saved in the directory initially and persist all operations to disk in real time, significantly reducing the memory footprint.

(From the Saving test data: config files and formatters section)

Note that mb is not persistent by default. Absent the datadir option, stopping and restarting mb will lose all stubs and all requests.

Given the above statements, I was actually hoping mountebank worked this way already before I tested. I any case, I think the proposal seems aligned with the spirit of these options as documented.

I realized fairly quickly after posting this that my issue stems from attempting to use the --datadir and --configfile options simultaneously when attempting to 'update' my mocks by proxying / recording new requests. The config file overwrites the data dir and this is stated clearly in the documentation.
I'm attempting to rework my strategy for maintaining mocks over time. Again my primary goal is to have an easy way to record new responses programmatically without overwriting any previously recorded responses and without having to do too much manually to keep track of what's already been recorded. I'll report back here if I find a solution I'm happy with.


[REQ] re add the pick which esc menu  do u want 2 use

Acknowledgement of preliminary instructions

[X] I have read and acknowledged the preliminary instructions.

What idea do you have?
re add the esc menu optin like 2015 2020 2023 why did u  remove them why

The preset was removed (possibly temporarily) due to the fastflags becoming unstable from Roblox updates / changes.

i wrote a whole paragraph in the 2.8.1 release notes explaining why


[v3][UModal] Modal programatically opened using useModal are not reseting its state after close

Environment

Operating System: Windows_NT
Node Version:     v18.20.5
Nuxt Version:     3.14.1592
CLI Version:      3.15.0
Nitro Version:    2.10.4
Package Manager<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Builder:          -
User Config:      default
Runtime Modules<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Build Modules:    -

Is this bug related to Nuxt or Vue?
Nuxt
Version
^3.0.0-alpha.9
Reproduction
https://ui3.nuxt.dev/components/modal#programmatic-usage
Description
Modal opened using useModal are not reseting its state after close
Additional context
No response
Logs

Exactly I had to use something like this. I think it is the action of the close button that is added by default that does not change the state of v-model:open

@noook Any hint on this?

I’ve been testing this, and if we want to use a modal with useModal, we can’t do something like this:

This is because useModal exports a reactive variable isOpen that globally controls the currently opened modal.

so it is working as it should
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3e7fcd97-a92a-4de5-b93e-ce672738c414

using modal.isOpen.value or modal.close() programmatically does not trigger the update:open event in my testing


Inline Styling not working

Unfortunately could not get inline styling to work on iOS and Android, can anyone reproduce?

Welcome

Our favorite family tradition

I also detected issues with other type of styling such as
for example:
before I had: Some say it was a 17th century...  and th was properly rendered elevated but now either on Android or iOS these are not working.

Hi,
yes it does render correctly (in master).
Here the list of supported tags/styles https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/resources/string-resource.html#FormattingAndStyling


root: refactor reconcile logic as scheduler

closes #868

restruct reconcile execution logic like node's scheduler
reuse group_client to handle retriable-error

It seems that the problem in CI is not caused by this PR, so let's merging it first and then fix problems in others PR.


Make profiling frequency configurable and use prime number

I propose a new flag --cpu-sampling-frequency to configure the frequency at which profiling data is collected. Additionally, I propose we change the currently hardcoded default of 100 to 19. 19 because it is a prime number, and primes are good to avoid collisions with other things that may be happening periodically on a machine. In particular, 100 samples per second means every 10ms which is a frequency that may very well be used by user code.
Some additional further reading (thanks to @marselester for linking on Discord):

Brendan Gregg mentions the following profiling frequencies in Systems Performance book.
99 Hertz is used to avoid lock-step sampling that may occur at 100 Hertz, which would produce a skewed profile.
...
a typical CPU profiler at Netflix collects stack traces at 49 Hertz across 32 CPUs for 30 seconds: this produces a total of 47,040 samples.

19 is both 1 less than 20, which would have been a natural choice just for lowering overhead, but it both follows the rule outlined by Brendan Gregg, and even better, it is prime.

Implemented in the PR above by @marselester


Jenkins intermittant failure (Catkin build on ROS workspace)

The "Catkin build on ROS workspace" job in the top level Jenkins pipeline has started failing intermittently (both PRs and master).
Master

http://ci.px4.io:8080/blue/organizations/jenkins/PX4%2FFirmware/activity?branch=master
Typical failure output.

Example: http://ci.px4.io:8080/blue/organizations/jenkins/PX4%2FFirmware/detail/master/1127/pipeline
@TSC21 could you take a look?

I pulled the docker image, ran the same steps as Jenkins and ran the test numerous times without failure. Let's try to catch something in a log.

It seems that px4 is shutting down when it shouldn't. #12483

This looks good now.


[Slack Whitelisting] Fix indexing condition

Description
An assumption from #7692 that when the message comes from a "bot" then bot_profile is always set might have changed the indexation logic outside the scope of whitelisting.
This can be a cause for the rate limit issues that appeared after #7692 discussed here
This PR ensures indexing of bots is exactly what it was before, save for presence in whitelist, by fixing the condition
Risks
na
Deploy
connectors

PMRR

👍🏻
(NIT: Maybe we could do a isHumanOrWhitelistedBot function to not duplicate this logic twice! - Feel free to ignore of course)


remove shell-escaping url in S3ZipContent

Hello,
when I deploy a Kubeless function with strategy: S3ZipContent, the deploy fails.
The pod goes in Init:CrashLoopBackOff status because the Kubeless prepare initContainer cannot retrieve the artifact from the bucket using the S3 presigned url.
Logs of the prepare initContainer:
sh: 1: -L: not found

The issue seems related to the CURL command in the preapre container that has the url argument with two quotes before and after the url.
Example:
curl ''https://grid.photosi.com/kubeless-artifacts-test/microservice-sls-test-1583329211862.zip?AWSAccessKeyId=XXXXX&Expires=1614865212&Signature=a%2Fc%2F5A3k3G0EbL%2Fz0Up9u8m6pN0%3D''
          -L --silent --output /tmp/func.fromurl && echo 'f68e1c7f7427afdc65b4cdcd514239fdb3ffd4850cb00cd6032189305b9ee827  /tmp/func.fromurl'
          > /tmp/func.sha256 && sha256sum -c /tmp/func.sha256 && unzip -o /tmp/func.fromurl
          -d /kubeless && cp /src/project.csproj /kubeless

Seems that shellescape in lib/strategy/s3_zip_content.js is the cause of this issue and I think it should be no more necessary because of this commit to the kubeless project.
I hope this PR could be merged to fix issues with S3ZipContent deploys.
Let me know if you have any questions, comments or suggestions.
Thank you very much for your work,
Lorenzo Angelini

Thanks for the PR @lorenzo-ange!
From your comment is not clear to me if you were able to verify if removing that dependency fixes the problem. Can you confirm it?
Also, to automatically publish your changes, do you mind increasing the version of the package in the package.json?

Hi @andresmgot ,
I confirm that this PR fixes the problem.
I updated the package version in package.json and also updated the Kubeless and Kubeless Kafka versions in travis-ci configuration to make the tests pass.


docs(request-transformer) document missing features in plugin

Direct review link:
https://deploy-preview-2186--kongdocs.netlify.app/hub/kong-inc/request-transformer/
@kikito in the non-generated portion of this doc, I'm seeing a lot of with/without db entires that could use some div tags and take up less real estate. I'll take care of that.


macOS 11.0 pools will be transited to private preview.

Hi GitHub Actions community!
A couple of months ago we added a new macOS 11.0 image in a “preview” mode and eventually we expect it to become a production image.
Typically, we increase pool capacity along with increasing image usage, but demand for this pool is outpacing our capacity plan.
Given the constantly growing demand and in order to prevent degraded experience, we have to temporarily transit this pool to a private preview until we come up with a final plan of making macOS 11.0 ready for production use.
What does “private preview” mean?
This limitation will live on organization level (personal accounts are considered as organization too), so if you are using macos-11 somewhere in your organization — you will still be able to use it. But this pool will be inaccessible for new organizations that never used it before.
We are sorry for inconveniences, and will try to open this pool again as soon as possible.
UPDATE
The macOS 11 virtual environment is currently in preview and is automatically available to the existing Enterprise plan customers who used macOS hosted runners at least once between May, 1 - June, 1. New Enterprise plan customers, or customers on other plans, should fill the form to request access to macOS 11 virtual environment. Please view our Big Sur guide for more details.

The docs still mention macos-11.0:
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#jobsjob_idruns-on

The docs still mention macos-11.0:
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#jobsjob_idruns-on

Hi @tomhamming,
thanks for noticing it, we will update docs soon as well.

Hi @tomhamming,
thanks for noticing it, we will update docs soon as well.

Would this have anything to do with my macos builds always hanging now?

Would this have anything to do with my macos builds always hanging now?

Hi @rwwagner90,
closing pool was the first step in resolving constantly increasing queues, and now we are looking into how to improve current queues given the capacity we have. Hopefully, queues will become more healthy soon.
Thank you for your patience.

Hi @rwwagner90,
closing pool was the first step in resolving constantly increasing queues, and now we are looking into how to improve current queues given the capacity we have. Hopefully, queues will become more healthy soon.
Thank you for your patience.

@AlenaSviridenko thanks, hope things improve soon! I wasted a lot of hours yesterday trying to debug this, but I think it was just the Mac images not working.

@AlenaSviridenko thanks, hope things improve soon! I wasted a lot of hours yesterday trying to debug this, but I think it was just the Mac images not working.

macOS 11 image works great for us. We are using GitHub actions as our CI to build and release macOS 11 app.
When the preview is planned to be a production?

macOS 11 image works great for us. We are using GitHub actions as our CI to build and release macOS 11 app.
When the preview is planned to be a production?

Hi! Currently, we don't have any certain ETA, but we will announce officially and publicly when macOS 11.0 will be ready for production.

Hi,
big thanks for the ongoing support for macos 11.0, we're using it in keptn project for building our CLI.
coming from travis-ci, I always liked this status page https://www.traviscistatus.com/, most importantly the "backlog" (= queue) of macos builds:

Is there such a thing for virtual environments on GH Actions? This would really help users to troubleshoot problems (e.g., oh my pipeline is stuck because MacOS builds are queued)

Thank you for supporting latest macOS release. As a customer we would like GitHub to make public releases of runners when Apple makes macOS release public. For example macOS 11 was released November 2020. Meantime we are happy to use beta or preview versions.

How does one know if they are being part of new or existing organizations using macos-11.0 ? Will there be verbose errors saying that they should use macos-latest instead?

How does one know if they are being part of new or existing organizations using macos-11.0 ? Will there be verbose errors saying that they should use macos-latest instead?

Over at https://github.com/python-pillow/pillow-wheels/runs/1813985728?check_suite_focus=true, I'm see 'X This check failed' - contrasted with the successful run at https://github.com/radarhere/pillow-wheels/runs/1813987594?check_suite_focus=true, where my fork is in the pool and runs without a problem.

How does one know if they are being part of new or existing organizations using macos-11.0 ? Will there be verbose errors saying that they should use macos-latest instead?

Hi! if organization used macos-11.0 last 30 days — pool should be available. If it is not — No runner matching the specified labels was found: macos-11.0. error will be displayed.

How does one know if they are being part of new or existing organizations using macos-11.0 ? Will there be verbose errors saying that they should use macos-latest instead?

Hi! if organization used macos-11.0 last 30 days — pool should be available. If it is not — No runner matching the specified labels was found: macos-11.0. error will be displayed.

Roger that. Apparently my organization is able to use macos-11.0 but it's really unstable. Queue times are enormous and workflows often fail. I went back to using macos-latest for now but I'd love to see these private previews actually working for those who can use them.

Hi @christian-kreuzberger-dtx,
unfortunately GH Actions doesn't provide such status page, but the idea is interesting, we'll take a look into it, thanks!

@AlenaSviridenko my organization had used the macos-11.0 image (11 times) with a latest use of 2 months ago. We maintain a custom python that is used for tens of thousands of enterprise macOS devices. We hadn't had to build python until today and now it will be impossible to maintain the project on GitHub.
I need access to the image because it's the only way to reliably build universal macOS python wheels that support both Intel and Apple Silicon macs.
Is there anyway to get this re-allowed? The project is located here: https://github.com/macadmins/python

we are waiting for a long time for runner to pick up jobs on macos-11.0 to run our CI tests.
if it helps for anyone we found that macos-latest runner can at least compile and build MacOS 11.0 application. So we are using more macos-latest runner to build and publish releases for macOS 11 even it is unable to run tests or even load the app.

@erikng if it helps, this is how I built universal binaries with the current macos-latest (10.15) runner: https://github.com/csett86/jitsi-meet-electron/blob/main/.github/workflows/nodejs.yml#L58

FWIW, I suspect that a lot of CI use cases just want to build with the newer SDK (mine fit in this category), so if the docs made it clearer how to do that, then I suspect that there would be less demand for 11.0 itself.

@erikng if it helps, this is how I built universal binaries with the current macos-latest (10.15) runner: https://github.com/csett86/jitsi-meet-electron/blob/main/.github/workflows/nodejs.yml#L58

That works, thanks @csett86! 🚀

The problem is two fold for us. One is compiling the wheels and then the secondary is creating the package. From how I understand it, only product build on Big Sur can create a package with a distribution file that supports both Intel and Apple silicon Macs. If you build a package on Catalina, it will be universal (and can be notarized) but it will trigger a user to need to install Rosetta2 on AS Macs.
Those tools are built into the OS and not part of the Xcode command line tools package.

GitHubbers, could you please provide an update on this issue? It's been 3 months since Big Sur's public release - I understand that there may be extenuating circumstances here, but if this is the speed with which the Actions team is going to be deploying major macOS updates, then Hosted Runners aren't going to be a viable option for those of us trying to use your service to build macOS apps.
As I'm sure you are also aware, Xcode 12.5 is now in beta, and it requires macOS 11. Things are about to become untenable for many iOS developers using GitHub Actions who want to test on the latest SDKs.

Hello,
we apologize for a long silence, we understand that macOS 11.0 is a highly demanded OS now because of the latest Xcode, unique Swift UI features and so on, this is our 1st priority for now, and although it appeared to be a pretty tricky from the all point of view, we are almost on the final line with the support and capacity plan. We will come up with this plan by the end of February.
Thank you for your patience.

Hi GitHub Actions community!
A couple of months ago we added a new macOS 11.0 image in a “preview” mode and eventually we expect it to become a production image.
Typically, we increase pool capacity along with increasing image usage, but demand for this pool is outpacing our capacity plan.
Given the constantly growing demand and in order to prevent degraded experience, we have to temporarily transit this pool to a private preview until we come up with a final plan of making macOS 11.0 ready for production use.
What does “private preview” mean?
This limitation will live on organization level (personal accounts are considered as organization too), so if you are using macos-11.0 somewhere in your organization — you will still be able to use it. But this pool will be inaccessible for new organizations that never used it before.
We are sorry for inconveniences, and will try to open this pool again as soon as possible.

Hi @erikng, we included your org back to macOS-11.0 pool, sorry for inconveniences and late reply. We have some internal limitation of pool usage history, that is why your org was not included previously.

Thank you!

Hi @AlenaSviridenko, we've run GitHub Action with macOS 11 runner before it moved to private preview. We used it to distribute the Termius app for the arm64 architecture.
Can we get access back to the macOS-11.0 pool? Could you help with this?

Please give us back access to macOS 11. Our organisation was using it successfully last year.

I need help don't know what I'm doing

Guess I'll just continue doing builds on my personal machine, and set my CI to only test Intel builds.

Sorry for jumping late to the party but this is quite silly. At the bare minimum you should remove this information from virtual-environments to avoid confusion and time waste :)

I second freak4pc's suggestion. I must note also that if I add macos-11.0 and want to use a matrix of [ maxos-10.15, macos-11.0 ], then the 11.0 build never finishes without saying that it is not available, and the 10.15 build silently gets 'cancelled' without any explanation at all. That doesn't look like correct behavior. I think you must announce removal of 11.0 environment for new users, and remove 11.0 from the documentation until it the capacity is available. The current behavior is highly confusing.

@AlenaSviridenko Would you be so kind to give a status update on the macOS 11.0 image? Today's Xcode 12.5 RC release (on macOS 11 only) makes the availability even more critical as the official release is expected for next week.

Hi 👋,
we're working on a plan to get Big Sur added to the hosted pool sometime in June/July, we are still working on hardware infrastructure to be ready. We are aware about stable Xcode 12.5 coming soon and doing everything possible to make macOS 11 ready as soon as possible.

Seems like MacOS 11 builds are currently not working even in private preview. They are failing with
An error occurred while provisioning resources (Error Type: Failure).

Hi 👋,
we're working on a plan to get Big Sur added to the hosted pool sometime in June/July, we are still working on hardware infrastructure to be ready. We are aware about stable Xcode 12.5 coming soon and doing everything possible to make macOS 11 ready as soon as possible.

that is way too late

Three months for a new version of Xcode? That would be a month after WWDC.
If you're trying to be an acceptable commercial CI solution, this kind of SLA will never work for developers.
Bitrise [https://discuss.bitrise.io/t/xcode-12-5-release-candidate-12e262-is-now-available-on-big-sur/16612](already has Xcode 12.5 RC1).

we're working on a plan to get Big Sur added to the hosted pool sometime in June/July

This is very frustrating for those of us who have invested significant time into GitHub Actions.
Should we expect a similar lead time for macOS 12 when it is inevitably announced in June/July?

There was a big licencing change (#2604) between macOS 10.15 and 11, specifically around how machines can be rented out. I'd assume that GitHub/Microsoft are probably building out infrastructure based on the new licencing (I'd expect to see Azure macOS VMs), and that will back Azure Pipelines and GitHub Actions once it's live. If this is the case this delay is likely a one-off issue rather than a pattern for the future.
I suspect this is not something we need to worry about, although it would certainly be nice to see it happen as soon as possible.
Anyone at GitHub/Microsoft please do correct me, if you're allowed to!

Should we expect a similar lead time for macOS 12 when it is inevitably announced in June/July?

Hopefully, not. Initially, GitHub Actions started with a single macOS version, so adding a new one brought some challenges. But once we polish the onboarding plan, we could stick to it for future versions, so onboarding cadence should be way better.

Without macOS 11.0, we won't be able to use Xcode 12.5 which requires Big Sur 11 or later (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode-release-notes/xcode-12_5-release-notes)

Without macOS 11.0, we won't be able to use Xcode 12.5 which requires Big Sur 11 or later (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode-release-notes/xcode-12_5-release-notes)

Also worth adding we need Big Sur in order to test iOS 14.5 and up.

Without macOS 11.0, we won't be able to use Xcode 12.5 which requires Big Sur 11 or later (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode-release-notes/xcode-12_5-release-notes)

Also worth adding we need Big Sur in order to test iOS 14.5 and up.

Yep. Also, it makes it a lot harder to use Swift 5.4 on macOS.
I've hit this today while updating our OSS components - which are now all untested on the newest Xcode / Swift 5.4.

I agree with all of the comments said thus far on the topic. macOS 11 needs to be opened up much sooner than June/July. We need the ability to use Xcode 12.5 on CI, as we have plans imminent plans to start using Swift 5.4 features.
I should also add that Apple has already released a beta version of iOS 14.6 which also relies on Xcode 12.5. We also all know that at WWDC on June 7, Apple will be releasing betas for Xcode 13, macOS 12, iOS 15. These need to be available on CI before July as well.
I have to say I expected more from GitHub and Microsoft.

 The docs still mention this as available and yet I have to dig around here to find out that the semi-silent failure of my matrix build on macos-11 was actually by design.

Sorry, maybe I am saying something obvious now..
Do you know that you don't need Apple Silicon to run macOS 11?
I would of course appreciate a virtual environment with macOS 11.3 running on Apple Silicon. But a virtual environment with macOS 11.3, running on an Intel Mac, with Xcode 12.5, would be fine for now, at least for me. And it would certainly be better than no macOS 11 support at all.

agree with all of the above comments, need this for Xcode 12.5 in our CI now as we have to be on Swift 5.4 for real issues that were fixed in 5.3 specifically for our organization by Apple. If we can't be on Swift 5.4, we can't even work so need 12.5 in CI. How can we join the private preview as an org? I added the macos-11.0 and also tried macos-11.2 but I get an error in the check This check failed before it even starts building I presume because my org isn't apart of the preview? what do I need to do in order to join? Thanks!

Waiting on MacOs 11 to create binaries for M1 macs

Waiting on MacOs 11 to create binaries for M1 macs

We've been using xcodebuild on macOS 10 to create binaries for M1. And our app is macOS 11 only. We only use macOS 11 for running automated tests.

@AlenaSviridenko I understand you and the GitHub Actions team very likely have a lot on your plate and I realise it's probably unhelpful to keep badgering you and your team about it. However, I feel it's important for us to emphasise to your leadership that for the macOS and iOS development community, adding macOS 11 support is not a "nice to have". Not having it is a blocker. Waiting until June or July is way too long. Waiting until May was too long.
Apple drops support for the previous operating system consistently each year. GitHub could and should have seen this coming.
We need to be able to use the latest version of Xcode to keep up to date with the latest bug fixes, features, and devices that Apple releases.
Without it, the only choice is to move to a provider that treats iOS and macOS developers as a priority. When other providers such as Bitrise are providing Xcode betas within a day or two, it makes me wonder what the benefit of continuing to use GitHub actions is when we can't even use release builds.
I would ask that as a minimum to please provide a more concrete timeline as to when macOS 11 will be available for all GitHub Actions users so we have a degree of certainty around this.

Does macOS 11 support take so long because Github tries to provide macOS 11 virtual machines on Apple Silicon macs? If they just install macOS 11 on an Intel Mac, there should be no problem, should it?
That's what I was trying to say with my previous comment.
Can we have a statement by Github that either:

yes they are trying to install macOS 11 on Apple Silicon, and that's the reason why it takes so long. And macOS 11 on Intel Macs would be easy.
no, macOS 11 on Intel Macs is equally hard to do, and they've tried this already.

The need for xCode 12.5 is pretty big. Apple requires the new Apple Tracking Transparency framework if you do any data tracking. That framework is only available in xCode 12.5. This means we cannot generate any builds (CI, testing or app store) using Azure Pipelines or Github actions. I think any real business or dev teams, including ours, will be looking at alternatives now.

@oloastrickland  I completely agree that I'd love for for Github Actions to provide MacOS11/Xcode 12.5. However, just in case it helps you get unblocked, I believe that the ATT framework was actually available from iOS14.0/Xcode 12.0. You're only required to use it from iOS14.5, but it was available earlier than that if you chose to opt-in. So you might be able to continue to make builds using Xcode 12.4.

Setting up macOS 11 on Intel Macs is hard too, but we are really close to getting new capacity. Hopefully, it will happen sooner in May, this is our 1st priority for now.

Someone mistakenly installed Xamarin.iOS 14.16 on the macOS 10.15 image and set it to default. Xamarin.iOS 14.16 has a hard dependency on Xcode 12.5. From this thread, I found out that Xcode 12.5 can't be installed on macOS 10.15. All of my Xamarin.iOS builds are failing without making a change because of this discrepancy since everything is set to use the default / latest.
I get this error when building
MTOUCH : error MT0180: This version of Xamarin.iOS requires the iOS 14.5 SDK (shipped with Xcode 12.5). Either upgrade Xcode to get the required header files or set the managed linker behaviour to Link Framework SDKs Only in your project's iOS Build Options > Linker Behavior (to try to avoid the new APIs).
Can we get this installation rolled back since I don't actually need macOS 10.11 and don't want to take from the limited resources. I also don't want to have to update all of my build definitions to pin to a previous version of Xamarin.iOS.

@svaldetero
For an immediate fix, you can add this step to your iOS build job to put this Action into your pipeline, which will set the version of Xamarin.iOS used to a specific version.
    - name: Setup Xamarin
      uses: maxim-lobanov/setup-xamarin@v1
      with:
        xamarin-ios-version: '14.14'
        xcode-version: '12.4'

I agree that it should be rolled back anyways, since this isn't a useful Xamarin configuration for this OS, but that may get you up and running a bit quicker.

We have already merged the fix https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/pull/3375, and it will be available with the next macOS deployment approximately on Wednesday.
We are investigating how that happened because our internal tests on macOS 10.15 with the configuration of Xamarin.iOS 14.16 + Xcode 12.4 have passed. Maybe some more complex cases cause this error

@AlenaSviridenko Thanks for the quick fix! I'm glad that is has already been identified and scheduled for deployment.

@AlenaSviridenko 👋 are there any updates for this or updates on a revised ETA? thanks

I don't really understand why Github can't just take an existing VM with macOS 10.15 and hit the "Update" button that is under Settings-app, then "Software Update". Can someone explain why this OS update is different? Am I missing something obvious here? Because that is how I installed macOS 11 on my local machine.

I don't really understand why Github can't just take an existing VM with macOS 10.15 and hit the "Update" button that is under Settings-app, then "Software Update". Can someone explain why this OS update is different? Am I missing something obvious here? Because that is how I installed macOS 11 on my local machine.

If you take time to read this thread you may find out why.

Setting up macOS 11 on Intel Macs is hard too, but we are really close to getting new capacity. Hopefully, it will happen sooner in May, this is our 1st priority for now.
https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/issues/2486#issuecomment-832148492

@caioremedio : Your reply is just rude, I would prefer if you don't participate in this conversation.

Setting up macOS 11 on Intel Macs is hard too, but we are really close to getting new capacity. Hopefully, it will happen sooner in May, this is our 1st priority for now.
#2486 (comment)

I read everything. And this particular quote doesn't explain anything by the way.

Maybe Github can give us a little bit more information on what is going on? Where is the problem exactly?
How was the original pool organized? Did you just update individual macOS 10.15 machines manually? If so, why can't this be done with more machines? Or did you run macOS 11 on the new M1-macs? If so, can you order more of them? And did Apple deliver them? If yes, is there a problem with integrating them because the current data center is too small? I asked a similar question 2 weeks ago ( https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/issues/2486#issuecomment-831762886 ) and that was just ignored.
Does anyone here know if the macOS 11 pool runs on Intel or on Apple Silicon? The answer quoted above ("Setting up macOS 11 on Intel Macs is hard too") seems to be carefully crafted to avoid answering that question.

@michaelpeternell I don't think you'll get an answer about what exactly GitHub is doing operationally to not be able to deliver this on time. Whatever issues they're having due to M1, it's more than likely they're learning from this and they'll do their best not to have this happen again with the next OS release. Pretty much every org has struggled with the transition, both at hardware and software sides (e.g. Homebrew).

Working with Azure Devops, got the exact same problem

@michaelpeternell Sorry if I sound rude but your message doesn't has any tech question. Tbh you just sound arrogant to the entire Dev Team by saying: "Hey guys there is an Update Button inside System Prefs you know that? Why not pressing it?"
So yes, my quote explain exactly what you are looking for: Why aren't they pressing the update button?
 Okay, I got it. I'm still genuinely curious what the problem is.  I understand. I know that maybe they tried to press the "Update" button. And it probably failed with some error message. Or they update through some other means, maybe there is a command line interface for that. Maybe the answer to my question of wether the current macOS 11 pool runs on Intel or on Apple Silicon is obvious too, so you assume that I must be arrogant for asking that question. That would have been a tech question, by the way. Anyhow, I don't care anymore.

@michaelpeternell I think the process isn't as simple as "updating a machine".
I don't know how exactly GitHub maintains their runners, but I could imagine that they are transient virtual machines. Meaning (a bit simplified) every time a job defined to run on a macOS machine is submitted, they set up a new (clean) VM and tear it down once the job has finished.
To be able to do this, the process of setting up and tearing down a VM needs to be automated which I believe is the tricky part here. There isn't simply a machine that you can upgrade and use it from now on. A process needs to be set up that dynamically creates and destroys virtual machines as they are needed.
Nevertheless, I also hoped for a bit more transparency in this process so that we can understand why exactly it takes so long...

@caioremedio : seems like everyone agrees that I am stupid. Okay, I got it. I'm still genuinely curious what the problem is.  I understand. I know that maybe they tried to press the "Update" button. And it probably failed with some error message. Or they update through some other means, maybe there is a command line interface for that. Maybe the answer to my question of wether the current macOS 11 pool runs on Intel or on Apple Silicon is obvious too, so you assume that I must be arrogant for asking that question. That would have been a tech question, by the way. Anyhow, I don't care anymore.

No, its not you...its a little vague for me also.
But my problem is the fact that Azure Devops is expecting image for my pipeline, that they have retracted I think.

I'm guessing the difficulty stems from the azure folks needing to contend with the new EULA terms where you need to dedicate an entire host to a single user for 24hrs in Big Sur: https://blog.macstadium.com/blog/developers-big-sur-and-vindication
That doesn't play well with short lived CI vms at all.

It's probably because Apple probably wants all software development to be handled by developers on their personal machines, and put an end to this CI nonsense. But that's just my reading of it.

It's probably because Apple probably wants all software development to be handled by developers on their personal machines, and put an end to this CI nonsense. But that's just my reading of it.

You clearly didn't read @CamJN's article, as it states that this use case is now officially supported by Apple (albeit with some restrictions).

👋 are there any updates for this or updates on a revised ETA? thanks

Is there a way to find out a revised ETA?
(I am sure the GH Actions team is doing everything they can to get this done as soon as possible, so thank you for all your effort on this!)

Hey,
we are targeting end of May / beginning of June to start opening pool for Enterprise and Teams customers, and later for all customers, but that is a pretty rough timeline and the actual dates can vary.

For Azure DevOps users who end up here:
You need to add the following task to your yaml:
`

script: sudo $AGENT_HOMEDIRECTORY/scripts/select-xamarin-sdk.sh 6_12_7
displayName: 'Select symlink version'
enabled: true
`

The default symlink version (6_12_8) uses Xamarin.iOS 14.16 which requires Xcode 12.5:

However, Xcode 12.5 will only be available with MacOS 11.0. Therefore you have to use symlink version 6_12_7.
Cheers,
Robin

We really need this support, too. We're willing to pay for access to runners.

We really need this support, too. We're willing to pay for access to runners.

If that's the case, just get a MacStadium Mac Mini and run your own custom rubber (you can see ReactiveX/RxSwift for an example)

That really isn't suitable for open-source projects since self-hosted runners aren't secure against external PRs. Even GitHub themselves don't recommend using them in this case:

We recommend that you only use self-hosted runners with private repositories. This is because forks of your repository can potentially run dangerous code on your self-hosted runner machine by creating a pull request that executes the code in a workflow.

In case upgrading the machines is the bottleneck (which I suspect it is), I found that the following command can initiate the upgrade from the command-line: sudo /Applications/Install\ macOS\ Big\ Sur.app/Contents/Resources/startosinstall --agreetolicense --forcequitapps --nointeraction
You will still need to get that image placed on all of the Catalina machines, but that would be straightforward with Chef/Puppet/Terraform or whatever you've got running on there.
The bigger issue seems to be that even after running the upgrade, most of your services won't start up again until you log in through VNC (just an SSH terminal won't do it). I haven't yet found what other steps are required to fully automate this step.

If that's the case, just get a MacStadium Mac Mini and run your own self-hosted runner (you can see ReactiveX/RxSwift for an example)

That really isn't suitable for open-source projects since self-hosted runners aren't secure against external PRs. Even GitHub themselves don't recommend using them in this case:

We recommend that you only use self-hosted runners with private repositories. This is because forks of your repository can potentially run dangerous code on your self-hosted runner machine by creating a pull request that executes the code in a workflow.

This doesn't really seem like an issue anymore, as GitHub now requires organizational approval to run CI on PRs from non-members. This is a great thing even without such abuse issues since it means we don't waste time running CI on documentation and typo fix PRs. But it should allow using hosted runners without issue.

If that's the case, just get a MacStadium Mac Mini and run your own self-hosted runner (you can see ReactiveX/RxSwift for an example)

That really isn't suitable for open-source projects since self-hosted runners aren't secure against external PRs. Even GitHub themselves don't recommend using them in this case:

We recommend that you only use self-hosted runners with private repositories. This is because forks of your repository can potentially run dangerous code on your self-hosted runner machine by creating a pull request that executes the code in a workflow.

First of all, see @jshier's comment.
Second, as a temporary one month workaround it's overall fine in my book. I imagine very few use cases a consumer would open a PR to cause harm and a way that isn't very easy to revert given the machine only has the runner code and open source code publicly available.

Starting at $109/mo to rent a machine that costs just 7 times that? Not exactly what I'd call affordable for all but the dedicated and wealthy. I'll just continue churning out my own builds from home, in that case.

Starting at $109/mo to rent a machine that costs just 7 times that? Not exactly what I'd call affordable for all but the dedicated and wealthy. I'll just continue churning out my own builds from home, in that case.

They also have open source machines. You need to apply for it, but still.

Starting at $109/mo to rent a machine that costs just 7 times that? Not exactly what I'd call affordable for all but the dedicated and wealthy. I'll just continue churning out my own builds from home, in that case.

They also have open source machines. You need to apply for it, but still.

Oh. Oops. I'd gave to see if that's useful for my future cases, except, that adds more complication where I don't exactly need it right now. But thanks for the info.

No problem. Ok just say it probably takes 10 minutes to set up.

App Center apparently depends on this PR to be merged before they can support MacOS Big Sur and Xcode 12.5 and a lot of people are desperate for this. Hope you will find time to solve it soon 🥇
https://github.com/microsoft/appcenter/issues/2185

can we please get another status update on this? I believe end of May was said at some point and I want to know if that timeline still stands. Thanks!

@AlenaSviridenko looking at https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/issues/2486#issuecomment-843156334 I know @jonico has already contacted you about this. Where can I request for an Enterprise customer to be part of the first pool of users?

we are targeting end of May / beginning of June...

Is there any update on this?

For those asking for an update, see #3449

Our CI is blocked by this as well, please let me know if there is a way to access the preview!

Hi there!
Please, check out our project's README for the latest updates about macOS 11.

Thanks for the update!
The documentation linked about Azure DevOps don't say anything about macOS 11, do this means that it's outdated or macOS 11 isn't available?

macOS 11 is currently not available for Public AzDO customers, but we are also working on providing it as soon as possible. Azure DevOps infrastructure a bit different so the amount of work required is also different.

@AlenaSviridenko your latest comment made it seem like macOS 11 images were now publicly available for GitHub Actions even outside the private preview.
The readme you linked to also indicates macos-11 as being 100% rolled out.

However, GitHub Actions still aren't running macos-11 jobs:

No runner matching the specified labels was found: macos-11

Am I misinterpreting your comment and the readme? Could you please clarify whether or not macos-11 images are publicly available in this thread and in the readme?
Thanks!

@jpsim I struggled to understand this as well, but this snippet from https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments#available-environments explains it, afaict:

The macOS 11 virtual environment is currently in preview, and is automatically available to existing Enterprise plan customers. New Enterprise plan customers, or customers on other plans, should fill the form to request access to macOS 11 virtual environment. Please view our Big Sur guide for more details.
The macos-latest YAML workflow label still uses the macOS 10.15 virtual environment.

I.e, macos-11 is currently only available for existing enterprise customers, and everyone else needs to apply for access using the form linked to in https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/blob/main/docs/macos-11-onboarding.md

🍿

Ah, so in reality this comment was just to share that there's nothing new to share 🙃

current Enterprise customers also have been granted access to macOS 11 pools.

What qualifies as "current?" We've been enterprise customers for over a year.

Folks! if you don't have access to Big Sur, please fill this form and we will work quickly to give you the access. This is not a perfect solution but we decided to roll out Big Sur in phases instead of waiting for even more days and opening the pool to all. As we add more capacity, we will expand the preview to automatically include everyone on other paid and free plans. Thank you all for your patience.

Submitted the form for our Azure DevOps org.

Submitted the form for our Azure DevOps org.

@jeroenleenarts I think the preview is only for GitHub users. Us AzDO customers have to wait some more. See the comment bellow from Alena:

macOS 11 is currently not available for Public AzDO customers, but we are also working on providing it as soon as possible. Azure DevOps infrastructure a bit different so the amount of work required is also different.

We'll see, it is for an enterprise AzDO. So I expect some level of support beyond "hopefully some time soon".

Folks! if you don't have access to Big Sur, please fill this form and we will work quickly to give you the access. This is not a perfect solution but we decided to roll out Big Sur in phases instead of waiting for even more days and opening the pool to all. As we add more capacity, we will expand the preview to automatically include everyone on other paid and free plans. Thank you all for your patience.

I filled out the form a couple days ago; have yet to hear anything so much as a confirmation email.

Apple is notoriously developer-hostile and as far as I'm aware, there are no other CI/CD services giving such ease of access to a macOS system, nonetheless an M1 chip. Thus the work the Github team is doing here is rather ground-breaking - let's give them some time. Adding more pressure will not help them.

[…] there are no other CI/CD services giving such ease of access to a macOS system […]

Sorry, but this just isn't true. GitHub is significantly behind all of their competitors in this space. There are plenty of other CI/CD services that have been providing macOS 11 CI since late last year - here are three big ones that I found within about 60 seconds of searching:

https://blog.bitrise.io/post/hosted-ci-xcode-support
https://circleci.com/docs/2.0/testing-ios/#supported-xcode-versions
https://buildkite.com/blog/introducing-buildkite-macos-ci-managed-service

Thus the work the Github team is doing here is rather ground-breaking […]

It's really not - see the links above. GitHub also haven't given any indication that they're deploying M1-based hardware for their hosted runners.
I genuinely hope GitHub works through whatever challenges they are facing here, but based on the tiny, vague bit of information they've chose to share with us publicly, it feels an awful lot like they were caught very unprepared by ever having to upgrade the major macOS version of their CI.
Anyway, it looks like they're slowly deploying macOS 11 now, so I guess we'll see in the coming weeks how they deal with macOS 12.

Hey, I have an update: everyone who have submitted the form before June 3rd, has been granted access to macOS 11 pool.

Thanks @AlenaSviridenko 🎉
Just wanted to report back that I was able to use the new mac11 image.
Minor side note, looks like the image was renamed from macos-11.0 to macos-11 here.
But the json schema vscode uses still expecting macos-11.0 so it complains.
Not sure if the schema is updated automatically or not. I dropped a note here:
https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/commit/c60f54012ab18029c1efe8a74bca16ed89a25791#commitcomment-51693421

I finally got the new mac11 image as well but it still has swift 5.3 on it?
> swift --version
Apple Swift version 5.3.2 (swiftlang-1200.0.45 clang-1<IP_ADDRESS>)
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin20.5.0

Is anyone else experiencing this?

The macOS 11 image has Xcode 12.4 selected by default. You’ll need to set it to Xcode 12.5 by setting DEVELOPER_DIR in your GitHub action workflow.

Thank you @jpsim !

@jpsim Any indication on Azure Pipelines? I submitted the form as well, but that was on the 3rd and you indicated everyone submitted before that day receiving access to the latext macOS images. :)

@kneekey23 @jpsim FYI: we have announced switching the default Xcode to 12.5 in 2 weeks https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/issues/3522

@miketimofeev How to tell if I have macOS 11 images available on Azure DevOps Pipelines?

Azure DevOps has a bit different timeline, progress can be tracked here https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/issues/2072#issuecomment-847270559

Hey, I have an update: everyone who have submitted the form before June 3rd, has been granted access to macOS 11 pool.

Any chance of checking the form again for people since June 3rd? :) My team were recently asked to ditch Circle and are now blocked because we can't access Xcode 12.5 via macos11.

Hi,
yep, we just granted access to those who submitted the form by the end of June, 6.
I am monitoring capacity to define when we can do the new round of pool opening.

Hi,
yep, we just granted access to those who submitted the form by the end of June, 6.
I am monitoring capacity to define when we can do the new round of pool opening.

we did not get the access, even though I submitted before June 6th

We also submitted the form before June 6, and don't have access to macos-11 on our (private) repo:
https://github.com/wikinodes-net/wikinodes
The message we got 3 hours ago: No runner matching the specified labels was found: macos-11
Thanks for your efforts, much appreciated!

Hi @sisoje, I see you have submitted it several times. We will investigate why the image is still not available for you.

Thank you so much @AlenaSviridenko. I was able to run a small script on macOS 11 and pass our tests. This is going to be great. Thanks!

@erikng the image with Xcode 13.0 will be deployed today

Does macos-latest point to macOS 11 if you're on the preview?

@simondelphia no, we don't have a plan to switch the label at the nearest future

We also need access to macOS 11.0 pool. Seems our apps cannot run on iOS 15 beta because when built with xcode 12.4, so we need xcode 12.5 for our build-jobs, at least before iOS 15 goes into public beta.
Submitted the form today, because we were not aware of "the form" earlier.

Where is this form ?

@akago-dev

I.e, macos-11 is currently only available for existing enterprise customers, and everyone else needs to apply for access using the form linked to in https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/blob/main/docs/macos-11-onboarding.md

A dumb question: are the macos-11 runners x86_64 only?  (I'm sorry, I've spent lots of time searching docs and trying out without finding explicit information.)

According to this document, "Big Sur will automatically become available to existing Enterprise customers". Does this mean all existing enterprise customers will get access automatically without submitting the form, or does it mean existing customers will get access granted they submit the said form? If this becomes available to all customers automatically, when will this happen?

Hi @hakonk,
we update a note in the main README file with some clarification what does it mean:
The macOS 11 virtual environment is currently in preview and is automatically available to the existing Enterprise plan customers who used macOS hosted runners at least once between May, 1 - June, 1. New Enterprise plan customers, or customers on other plans, should fill the form to request access to macOS 11 virtual environment.

@AlenaSviridenko I submitted a form, how long approval process is taking?

Thank you for the clarification, @AlenaSviridenko.
With the following
pool:
  vmImage: macos-11

I get ##[warning]An image label with the label macos-11 does not exist..
Am I referencing the wrong image, or does this mean the organization has not (yet) gotten the access to the macos-11 pool?

Hello,
Is there any estimate as to when macos-latest will transition to macOS 11?

Hi guys,
We have 3rd party dependencies running on the latest Xcode that requires macOS 11.
Our CI process is blocked by this and we need the OS released as soon as possible. We have filled out the form but still no response.
The OS was released 7 months ago from now.
Can we please get this version out so we can resume work as normal?
Thanks

Hi!
Enterprises who submitted the form before June, 15, have been granted the access to the pool. @IvanTsanev89 your organization was in this list.
@hakonk image label is correct, looks like org doesn't have access to the pool. Have you submitted the form or did your organization use GitHub-hosted macOS runners during the specified period?
@ansp we are reviewing the responses at least twice a week, but onboarding depends on current capacity situation.
@AaronMT not earlier than it goes out of preview. I'd say approximately transition will take place at the end of summer - mid of the fall, we are working on the plan.

I'm still seeing the No runner matching the specified labels was found: macos-11.0 failure.
All I've changed in my workflow is:
jobs:
  test:
    runs-on: macos-11.0

Do I also need to add pool, vmImage like hakonk posted above? I can't find any documentation about those for Github Actions (just Azure), and my workflow fails when I add them to my job.

@AlenaSviridenko , is there any ETA on when this should be moving out of preview?

@AlenaSviridenko We submitted the form yesterday around 10:30.

 macos-11.0

should be macos-11 not macos-11.0

It's failing for me with macos-11 as well. I submitted the form last week so is there anything else I need to do to enable the pool?

I'm getting a similar error:
No runner matching the specified labels was found: macos-11

Hey, guys, I managed to use macOS 11.0 build toolchain in macOS 10.x for cross-compiling(build arm64 binary under x86_64 machine)
# ...

# Hack macOS 10.x to allow arm64* build support
if [ "$(sw_vers -productVersion | cut -d'.' -f1)" = 10 ]; then
  pushd /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/SDKs
  sudo rm MacOSX.sdk
  sudo ln -s MacOSX11.1.sdk MacOSX.sdk
  sudo rm -rf MacOSX10.15.sdk
  ls -l
  popd
fi

# ...

Source: https://github.com/leiless/trojan-darwin-universal/blob/main/.github/workflows/build.yml#L40-L48
A bit of note, this hack is transient and provides no warranty or support. use at your own risk.

Hey,
Update: access is granted for those who submitted the form before June, 17. Those, whom I emailed with the clarification, will be included to the next iteration.
Thanks.

FYI for others but email was marked as spam on my end.

Appreciate the work y'all are putting into this, @AlenaSviridenko.
If it doesn't require a ton of effort, I think it'd be a lot smoother for people trying out GH Actions if the error message told us we didn't have access this environment. As is, I read the error message and then spent a lot of time analyzing my config trying to figure out what I did wrong:

But, I also know that may not be a trivial thing to do, so if not 🤷 such is life.

@JoshCheek, the correct label for macOS 11 runner is macos-11, not macos-11.0 — maybe that's why it's failing for you. See https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments#available-environments

@JoshCheek, the correct label for macOS 11 runner is macos-11, not macos-11.0 — maybe that's why it's failing for you. See > https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments#available-environments
That was also mentioned a few times in this thread 👀

Thanks :) I did wind up trying both of those. I tried a lot of things for several hours and in the end, I returned to macos-11.0, because that's what the step I used to set up Ruby used (here), which seems to be working for them (eg here). Appreciate the suggestion, though.

I guess this is an example of what I mean about better error messages. We can't tell from this error whether I've configured it wrong or whether I don't have access to this environment. So it's unclear whether to continue troubleshooting or not.

🤔 You know! 😃 I may have thought of an easy way to handle this: appending the list of available runners to the error message!
Presumably GH Actions checked for this "runner" from a set of runners. So if it doesn't match any of them, it could say "...and here are the runners / labels that I do know about". Then it would be trivial to determine whether you have it misconfigured (and what it should be configured to), or whether you lack permission.

Hi @AlenaSviridenko, I filled in the form on behalf of my organisation but have yet to receive a response. Please could you grant us access to the macos-11 runner? My email is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>🙏

Hi @marcbaldwin, you org should have been received access on Thursday, please, check it. Unfortunately, we don't yet have any individual informing way when access is granted, so I am posting updates here in thread when including another set of accounts.

👋 hi!
Update: macOS 11 pool is enabled for those who submitted the form before June, 22.
Thanks!

Hi @marcbaldwin, you org should have been received access on Thursday, please, check it. Unfortunately, we don't yet have any individual informing way when access is granted, so I am posting updates here in thread when including another set of accounts.

Thanks so much @AlenaSviridenko 🙏

@AlenaSviridenko hi. Thanks for managing this. My turn to ask - I've submitted the form three times on different dates for the python-pillow account, but it's not working yet and I've received no response. Is there any information you can give me?

@radarhere what is the image label you are using? Correct image label is macos-11

@AlenaSviridenko you're right. Thanks. It works now. Apologies for missing that.

@AlenaSviridenko firstly thanks for managing this push to macOS-11. I have a question regarding Xcode 12.5.1 for macos-11. I can see that support for Xcode 12.5.1 has already been added to images/macos/toolsets/toolset-11.json. I was wondering when we might see the macos-11 label pointing to the recent toolset-11.json changes. So that those of us with access to macos-11 can explicitly make use of Xcode 12.5.1. Thanks in advance 🙏

Hi!
Update: access has been granted for those who submitted the form before June, 24th.
@jimmyhoran, answering your question, new image will be deployed next week, likely on Tuesday. Usually, it takes 4-5 business days from new Xcode release to having it on our images.

Hi @AlenaSviridenko where would I need to go to fill out this form?

Hi @Specineff00,
here is the link to the guide https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/blob/main/docs/macos-11-onboarding.md, I have also updated issue description for visibility.

Hi!
Update: access has been granted for those who submitted the form before June, 24th.
@jimmyhoran, answering your question, new image will be deployed next week, likely on Tuesday. Usually, it takes 4-5 business days from new Xcode release to having it on our images.

I requested access using the form before June 24th and I don't have access.

@jahmai-ca, that is strange, all logs show that you should have access. What is the image label you are using? The correct one is macos-11

@AlenaSviridenko

Is it because it's been applied to my personal github account and not my companies? (criticalarc)

@jahmai-ca, oh, you are using Azure DevOps. I assumed it is https://github.com/criticalarc and enabled it in GitHub Actions for this org. For Azure Pipelines timeline and process is a bit different, please see this comment for details https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/issues/2072#issuecomment-854812898.

I've been following this thread for the longest time so I'll get notified once macOS 11 is fully supported, but the constant emails are kinda getting to me. Is there anywhere I can sign up to be notified when macOS 11 support finally reaches everyone?

I've been following this thread for the longest time so I'll get notified once macOS 11 is fully supported, but the constant emails are kinda getting to me. Is there anywhere I can sign up to be notified when macOS 11 support finally reaches everyone?

I'm kind of with you. It's been frustrating getting a notification on this issue for everyone who doesn't read the issue and posts the same thing again. I just want to be aware of when I can start using this in a small OSS project.

@juliand665, I can suggest customizing notifications to be notified only when it is closed, because I will definitely close that issue when macOS 11 will become generally available 🙂

Hi there,
Thanks everyone in the team for getting this up as soon as possible.
I went through the on-boarding guide and signed up.
I was wondering how would I know if I am approved for access?
Will there be like a mail notification or something related?
Regards,
Justin

Hi!
macOS 11 pool is enabled for those who submitted the form before June, 29th. I have sent several emails with clarification questions, these accounts will be included to the next iteration.
Thanks!

Hi, I submitted the form awhile ago and didn't hear back. Were we added?

@AlenaSviridenko First of all, I appreciate the efforts to support macOS 11.  Would you have a timeline when to expect this to be generally available?

@acenario, what is the organization name you have submitted for?

@acenario, what is the organization name you have submitted for?

"Ira Jaan"

@acenario, yes, 2 weeks ago it was enabled it for your organization. Unfortunately, there is no personal informing way yet, so I am posting updates here.
Just a reminder, correct image label is macos-11

Hey,
update: macOS 11 is enabled for those who have submitted the form before July, 1st. I have also sent several clarification emails, these accounts will be included to the next iteration.
We also have a code freeze next week, so the next iteration will take place a week of July, 14th.
Thanks.

@AlenaSviridenko thank you!

Any updates on this? When we will be able to use this environment? It is impossible to use Xcode 13 Beta or even Xcode 12.5/12.5.1 stable without it :(

+1 on Xcode 13 beta. Is there a timeline for that?

Hi, Xcode 13 beta is available on macOS 11 image https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/blob/main/images/macos/macos-11-Readme.md#xcode. Have you submitted the form to be able to use that image?

I have access to the Mac OS 11 image already. Is there another form for Xcode beta 13 separately?

@kneekey23 you can use Xcode 13 beta in macOS 11 image. just run: sudo xcode-select --switch /Applications/Xcode_13.0.app

@AlenaSviridenko is the macos11 preview available for Individuals too or only Organizations?

@lkuczborski for both organizations and individuals. Individual account name and organization name are treated the same way, so you can fulfill the form, and macOS 11 will be enabled for you once we have capacity for it.

Thanks! Will do!

@AlenaSviridenko thanks, submitted!

@AlenaSviridenko I submitted my name (@davdroman) and my company's name (@rythmico) only a day or two after the form came out last month and I still don't have it enabled. Would you be able to verify please?

@davdroman for organization, macOS 11 should work with label macos-11, but for your personal account I cannot find any confirmation that it is enabled. I will make sure to include you to the new iteration next week. I apologize for inconveniences, perhaps overlooked that as we have a lot of requests.

@AlenaSviridenko I've made a submission today for our FOSS organization qbittorrent, so hopefully it can be included in the new iteration next week.

Hi,
update after a silent week: macOS 11 was enabled for those who submitted the form before July, 12th. I have also sent several clarification emails. These organizations/accounts will be included to the next iteration once capacity is ready.
Thanks.

Hi @AlenaSviridenko, is this for GitHub Actions or Microsoft App Center?

This might be too a big an ask but, perhaps in the future for "Private previews" we could see an error message in the runner itself. I was about to open a ticket because of this:

As it works fine on personal macos-11 projects but not my company's enterprise account.

@AlenaSviridenko I've made a submission today for our FOSS organization @qbittorrent, so hopefully it can be included in the new iteration next week.

@AlenaSviridenko Are we added to the list??
Also, is it just for the qbittorrent/qBittorrent organization or do the team members like myself have it activated for our own forked repositories?

@cquanu , it is for GitHub Actions.
@xavier2k6 , yes, qbittorrent org was also included to preview. Only the original org, the form should be submitted for each account that forked the repo.

@AlenaSviridenko Thank you for the clarification, have advised team-members to request access if needed via the form.

@AlenaSviridenko

We will review the incoming requests periodically and open macOS 11 pool for some amount of them

How long does it take your team to process requests? My company just switched from GitLab to Azure in July. We don't have access to macos-11 image but we need it urgently since it contains Xcode 12.5 with simulators for iOS 14.5.
Our main iOS project has deployment target set for iOS 14.5 and we cannot downgrade it to iOS 14.4 (which is the top version supported in macos-latest).

@bdolewski for GitHub Actions, I am usually reviewing requests 2-3 times a week, but enabling macOS 11 two times a week. For Azure DevOps, process is a bit different: https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/issues/2072#issuecomment-854812898. So far, macOS 11 is enabled for Azure DevOps organization once a week.

Another update: macOS 11 access has been granted for those who submitted the form before July, 15th.

@AlenaSviridenko
https://github.com/Brett-Best/SwiftUIX/actions/runs/1032626590

No runner matching the specified labels was found: macos-11.0

https://github.com/SwiftUIX/SwiftUIX/runs/3071167967

Works fine

I’ve noticed that in my forked version of SwiftUIX if I use the exact same label as the original repo, I get the no runner error.
However, if I change the runner to macos-11, it works in my fork.
Why does macos-11.0 work in the original repo SwiftUIX/SwiftUIX but in my fork Brett-Best/SwiftUIX it does not?

@Brett-Best when we started opening macOS 11 pool by the form requests, we also renamed runner to macos-11, because it is more correct given the new macOS versions naming.
Your organization probably used macOS 11 runner before that update, and we added backward compatibility for such cases.
I would suggest changing runner label in the original repo for consistency.

Hi there,
Those who submitted the form before July, 19th have been granted the access to macOS 11 pool.

Hi @AlenaSviridenko,
is there any timeline when this will available to Azure Devops? I already tried to use it for my Enterprise with no success. Also reached my representative.
Thanks.

Hey!
Those who submitted the form before July, 21st have been granted the access.
I have sent several clarifying emails, they may land in a spam folder, please, check.
Thanks.

Hi @AlenaSviridenko ,
Yep, I just submited the form. My question is about using this images in Azure Devops not github actions. There is no updated documentation in the hosted reference page: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/agents/hosted?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml so I'm not clear on what the YAML VM Image Label will be neither this will work to Azure Devops environment.
Thanks in advance.

Hi @arturonaredo,
the form is only about GitHub Actions. Azure DevOps process is tracked in another issue and onboarding process is described here https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/issues/2072#issuecomment-854812898. New Azure DevOps orgs are onboarded about 2-3 times a month.
Unfortunately, we still have more serious capacity issues for Azure DevOps pools, so macOS 11 will remain in such preview state a bit longer than for GitHub Actions.
Documentation will be updated after opening the pool for everyone.

Hi @AlenaSviridenko, we submitted the form before July, 21st and we still don't have access to it. Nothing in my spam folder, could you please check? Our enterprise account is https://github.com/labtwin Thank you.

Hey,
new update: those, who submitted the form before July, 22nd, got access to macOS 11.
Thanks.

👋 hi!
We are planning to open Big Sur pool for all by the end of next week, but this is for GitHub Actions only. We have escalated requests about Azure DevOps Big Sur, because it is also critical. Hopefully, it will be open soon, too.
Thanks.

Submitted form early June I think it was (had a response back on 8 June asking for clarification on org name) and I don't yet seem to have access…

This should be added in docs since this issue keeps going, should make a notice in docs to prevent confusion.

Hi,
access has been granted for those, who submitted the form before July, 27th.
Thanks.

@AlenaSviridenko
Can you give an update and ETA on App Center support?
We urgently need Xcode 12.5 support in App Center to be able to build our app, else we will have to move our organization to another build service.
No one seems to be able to give an update in the App Center issue related to this: https://github.com/microsoft/appcenter/issues/2185

Hello! It's critical for everyone and App Center doesn't give a thing to this. The issues is already open since 4 may and no updates, no ETA. I hope you are loosing customers with such attitude...

Hi 👋
as for the App Center — it shares machines with Azure DevOps, please, see the latest update about Azure DevOps offering Big Sur https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/issues/2072#issuecomment-888037580

How can I get access to masOS-11 image plase?

Hi @mi-mazouz, please check out this guide on how to get access: https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/blob/main/docs/macos-11-onboarding.md

Update: access has been granted for those who submitted the form before July, 28th.

Thank you @AlenaSviridenko just submitted the form!

@AlenaSviridenko Sorry but any update, Still fail on macos-11 image

Hi @mi-mazouz, next iteration will occur on Monday, I'll post an update here. Unfortunately, was not able to enable macOS 11 pool yesterday due to an incident.

Hi there,
those, who submitted the form before August, 2, has been granted access to macOS 11.

@AlenaSviridenko I have just submitted the request. One quick question, once I get access to macOS 11, will this allow me to run 12.5 builds on App Center? Or do I have to use git hub actions for the CI/CD of my react native app?

@thotasairam, this is only for GitHub Actions, App Center doesn't support Big Sur now.

👋
another round of approvals: access has been granted to those who submitted the form before August, 3.
Thanks.

👋  Hello. We just filled out the form today (PayPal org). We're curious how frequently you're doing rounds of approvals so we can plan for when this will be available to use. Thank you!

👋 hi,
Access has been granted for those who submitted the form before August, 4. I have sent several clarification email regarding some requests, please, check them.
Thanks!

👋
new train of approvals just arrived 🚉, access was granted for those who submitted the form before August, 5.
Thanks.

The form currently requires you to specify a GitHub organization. Does this mean that macOS 11 is not available for individual repositories? When could we expect it to become available then?

@MaxDesiatov, personal account name is also treated like organization name. We are enabling it on the organization/account level, not a certain repository. So feel free to submit the form, so we can include you in the preview pool.
Thanks.

Is there any update on the general availability of this? I see that there were plans to release during this last week, but I'm assuming it got pushed based on the need to still request access.

@brysonreece unfortunately, we're a bit delayed for now, probably 1 or 2 weeks.

Since macOS 12.0 is only a month or two away, should we expect the same very delayed rollout for that version, with it becoming generally available only in August of 2022?

@MaxDesiatov we're working on delivering macos-12 on time (September-October)

The access was granted to everyone who submitted the form before August, 9 — 9.00 UTC

Why not just approve it for everyone?

I'm really disappointed of you guys, I will start evaluating github alternatives..

@AlenaSviridenko Hey! We (molistreaming) just made a request through the form. Hope to get access in next approval-train. Thanks for your hard work!

@badhenke the access is granted to your org and to all the others who submitted the form before August 10, 15-00 UTC
I have also sent several emails regarding some requests, please, check them.

@miketimofeev Hey there! Just missed this train, when will the next one be happening? :) We (@valora-inc) would love to have access for our builds please. Thank you!

Hey @noisypigeon! It will be in the next 24 hours.

we're working on delivering macos-12 on time (September-October)

I'd like to point out that making macOS 12 images available after the OS is released is not "on time".
We need to be able to test and run our app CI using the beta releases of these OSes, and using Xcode 13.

Here's the thing. macOS 11 made a huge hurdle with both its new licensing policies and with the option of rolling out ARM hardware. macOS 11 took all this time to roll out in a meaningful capacity, and other businesses who rolled it out faster had to comply with newer policies, such as requiring individuals or organizations to pay for a minimum of 24 hours on the same hardware at a time.
The transition to macOS 12 will not require any meaningful changes over the transition to 11. Therefore, as soon as the transition to 11 is complete, it will be on the roadmap to transition to 12 when it actually releases to stable, which is in September or October, depending on Apple.

Access is granted for those who submitted the form before August 12, 09-00 UTC

Hey @miketimofeev Thanks for giving access to @valora-inc. I've requested access for a personal project I'm working on with friends. I'm on a GitHub Teams plan so hopefully I'm eligible? Thanks for all the work y'all do!

@noisypigeon hey! Sent you an e-mail with a clarification question.

@miketimofeev Thanks! Replied!

Access is granted for those who submitted the form before August 13, 12-00 UTC

@tonyarnold Sharing this as an FYI. If you need macOS 12 sooner, you can get a Mac Mini from Mac Stadium (for free if your project is open source) and request that they install macOS 12 on it and then use the self runner. Obviously not as great as GitHub Actions but I'm looking into this for my own project and thought I'd share. :)
@kode54 thank you for saying this! as someone who's previously worked in infra (i'm not a gh employee) there's so much that goes into offering the apple ecosystem to devs. I wish apple would make it easier on everyone but oh well hahahah. Thanks for everything y'all do!


ISW drivers for fan and power control in MSI laptops

Issue description
Setting battery charging limit in MSI laptops is unsupported by the TLP framework. But this project https://github.com/YoyPa/isw reverse-engineered where the configuration is stored by the corresponding tool running on Windows.
I'd like to for this to be integrated in nixpkgs (and I'm interested in doing that myself given some guidance).
I see that here https://github.com/YoyPa/isw/tree/master/etc the repo proposes some configuration files to be stored in etc, enabling the ec_sys module, the options options ec_sys write_support=1 and a description of the configurations.
I wonder if the same effect can be achieved in nixos with:
boot.kernelModules = [ "ec_sys" ];
boot.extraModprobeConfig = "options ec_sys write_support=1";

but I'm unsure what's the form that those files should have.

isw-module.nix
{ config, lib, pkgs, ... }:

with lib;
let
  cfg = config.services.isw;
  defaultConf = "${pkgs.isw}/etc/isw.conf";
in
{
  options = {
    services.isw = {
      enable = mkEnableOption "msi laptop fan profile daemon";

      configFile = mkOption {
        type = types.nullOr types.path;
        default = null;
        description = ''
          The path to the <filename>isw.conf</filename> file. Leave
          to null to use the default config file included in the package
        '';
      };
    };
  };

  config = mkIf cfg.enable {
    environment.systemPackages = [ pkgs.isw ];

    environment.etc."isw.conf".source =
      if cfg.configFile == null then defaultConf else cfg.configFile;

    boot.kernelModules = [ "ec_sys" ];
    boot.extraModprobeConfig = "options ec_sys write_support=1";

    systemd = {
      packages = [ pkgs.isw ];
      services.isw = {
        wantedBy = [ "multi-user.target" ];
      };
    };
  };
}

isw.nix
{ lib, stdenv, fetchFromGitHub, python3, coreutils }:

stdenv.mkDerivation rec {
  pname = "isw";
  # Release is old and missing features such as setting the battery charging limit
  version = "unstable-2021-02-26";

  src = fetchFromGitHub {
    owner = "YoyPa";
    repo = pname;
    rev = "7c88670504ecd4462b1825a55bdb0be2944dfe94";
    sha256 = "13ax1npr6mwk8zg725vm4n5x58g4lf87crdw92yj1w7lnn0dxp8w";
  };

  buildInputs = [ python3 coreutils ];

  dontBuild = true;
  dontConfigure = true;

  postPatch = ''
    patchShebangs isw
    substituteInPlace<EMAIL_ADDRESS>\
      --replace "/usr/bin/sleep" "${coreutils}/bin/sleep" \
      --replace "/usr/bin/isw" "$out/bin/isw"
  '';

  installPhase = ''
    runHook preInstall

    install -Dm644 etc/isw.conf $out/etc/isw.conf
    install -Dm644<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    install -Dm644 isw $out/bin/isw

    runHook postInstall
  '';

  meta = with lib; {
    description = "Fan control tool for MSI gaming series laptops";
    homepage = "https://github.com/YoyPa/isw";
    license = licenses.gpl3Plus;
    maintainers = with maintainers; [ ];
  };
}

add to configuration.nix
nixpkgs.overlays = [
	(self: super: {
		isw = super.callPackage ./isw.nix { };
	})
];

imports = [
	import ./isw-module.nix
];


fix parse_history regex when sequence exeeds 9999

Match zero or more characters of whitespace at the beginning of lines when parsing history 1 output.
This fixed my issue where the parse_history function stopped working once my history reached 10000 lines.

Hi @awaxa ,
I did not understand how this fixed your issue. Can you explain what happens when history exceeds your configured limit ?

Remove the needs-info label after you clarify :)

Note:  I use export HISTFILESIZE= to set no limit to the size of my .bash_history file, and I would not have encountered this issue while using a limit less than 10000.
When my .bash_history file reached 10000 lines and my shell would evaluate the PARSE_COMMAND, I started seeing the parse error warning message.  The if statement in the log function would evaluate to False because the re.match in the parse_history function had stopped returning its capture groups.  Since the value of the history argument for the parse_history function is provided by the output from a subshell in the PROMPT_COMMAND, I noticed that the format of this output had changed with respect to the regular expression in parse_history.
The command HISTTIMEFORMAT= history 1 seems to always print the line number before the content of the line from .bash_history, and was now printing lines like 10011  date
Here's a sample of .bash_history lines 9998-10001 as formatted by the history command, from HISTTIMEFORMAT= history | sed -n 9998,10001p
 9998  ls
 9999  cd -
10000  cd ..
10001  ls

Notice that there is a space at beginning of the history output until line number 10000, and after that the output begins with the line number with no spaces.  The expression in the re.match statement in parse_history was defined as ^\s+(\d+)\s+(.*)$ and will only match if the output begins with one or more whitespace characters, but not if the output begins with a digit.
This commit changes the first + in this regular expression to a *.  This modifies its behavior from matching one or more whitespace characters at the beginning of a line of history output to matching zero or more whitespace characters.
With this fix, I am able to continue parsing history for .recent.db even when my .bash_history file is over 9999 lines in length.

Thanks for the super detailed explanation :)
I have a few other changes in mind in the coming few days. I will batch push pypi after that.


add monolog version 3 support

Hi everyone,
I've added  monolog/monolog:^3.0 because the bundle was not installable on a Symfony 6.1 project.
Hope it helps

Hello @matcaps you changed more than Monolog V3 😅
I'm closing this MR. I will open a new one with an update of composer.json only to support Monolog V3


Preflight support for the fees and new resources

Soroban host should provide as much support as possible/feasible for determining fees and validating the per-transaction limits in preflight. It's likely not possible to cover everything (e.g. transaction size fee may need to be determined on the client side after all the Soroban auth signatures have been collected).

The fee computation has been implemented as a rust library that can be shared with preflight (https://github.com/stellar/rs-soroban-env/pull/791). The limit enforcement is trickier as the outcome of the limit enforcement for core and preflight is different (core needs to just return an error, preflight might want to provide a detailed response flagging the exceeded limits, but not necessarily fail). So what we can really share is just comparing a bunch of number pairs and the harder part of getting these numbers has to be implemented separately for Core and preflight. Hence there won't be a shared library for limits for now.


Question : How to parse a JSON string

Hi @mausch,
I just discovered Fleece and really appreciate it.
My problem is I have a File so a string representation of Json and I would like to instantiate a type from it.
Here is the code:

type ConfigJson = {
    RelativeRoot: string
}

type ConfigJson with
    static member Create relativeRoot = { ConfigJson.RelativeRoot = relativeRoot }

    static member FromJson(_:ConfigJson) =
        function
        | JObject o -> ConfigJson.Create <!> (o .@ "relativeRoot")
        | x -> Failure (sprintf "Expected ConfigJson, found %A" x)

type Config private () =
    let mutable RelativeRoot = ""

    let mutable json = nullArg

    do
        let data = parseJSON(System.IO.File.ReadAllText("server.json"))
        (*ConfigJson.FromJson(data)*)(* Here is the problem *)
        |> ignore

    static let instance = Config()

I was supposing that FromJson was a method to instantiate the Type but I can't find how to use it. Sure it doesn't take a string as a entry. Could you help me please.
PS: Sorry, if the question is a little dumb.

Hi! No question is dumb.
parseJSON does take a string as parameter, but it returns a Choice<'a, string>.
If it's Choice1Of2 then the parsing was successful and you have the parsed value.
If it's Choice2Of2 then there was some parsing error and you get the error message as a string, which you can use to throw as an exception, display to the user or whatever you like.
Does that make sense?
To create a "singleton" instance of Config I recommend using F#'s lazy expressions
Cheers

Thanks for the answer and the tips.
I think I understand an then if the result is successful then I can pass it to FromJson of ConfigJson ?

No, FromJson is called implicitly by parseJSON, you don't need to call it
in your code.
On 31 May 2016 13:35, "Maxime Mangel"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote:

Thanks for the answer and the tips.
I think I understand an then if the result is successful then I can pass
it to FromJson of ConfigJson ?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/mausch/Fleece/issues/16#issuecomment-222675099, or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAFz2jjEDAcEpHnz4cBGJrefwO0sH8yTks5qHCrzgaJpZM4IqcXv
.

Ok :) Thanks for the help.
I am letting here my problem solved.
namespace Server

open System
open Fleece
open Fleece.Operators
open FSharpPlus

type ConfigJson = {
    RelativeRoot: string
    Server: string
    Database: string
    Uid: string
    Pwd: string
}

type ConfigJson with
    static member Create relativeRoot server database uid pwd=
        {
            ConfigJson.RelativeRoot = relativeRoot;
            ConfigJson.Server = server;
            ConfigJson.Database = database;
            ConfigJson.Uid = uid;
            ConfigJson.Pwd = pwd;
        }

    static member FromJSON (_:ConfigJson) =
        function
        | JObject o -> ConfigJson.Create <!> (o .@ "relativeRoot") <*> (o .@ "server") <*> (o .@ "database") <*> (o .@ "uid") <*> (o .@ "pwd")
        | x -> Failure (sprintf "Expected ConfigJson, found %A" x)

module Config =

    let config: ConfigJson =
        let data: ConfigJson ParseResult = parseJSON(System.IO.File.ReadAllText("server.json"))

        match data with
        | Success a -> a
        | Failure e -> failwith "Error when parsing json file"


#616 Relax freezing policy for ROM::Configurable

Fixes #616

It looks like master branch is unhealthy, so I left this PR in draft state until master will be fixed. cc @solnic

@v-kolesnikov I'll deal with this, hang tight

@v-kolesnikov pls rebase, I've fixed spec issues in master


Simple Demo does not render

I am trying to do this in ASP.NET Core and followed your installation instructions completely. I have double and tripple checked. But, the grid does not render at all... It won't even do this below. I am no sure what I am doing wrong, I can send you the code if that would help.
        @(Html
        .Grid(Model)
        .Build(columns =>
        {
            columns.Add(model => model.Name).Titled("Name");
            columns.Add(model => model.Email).Titled("Email");
            columns.Add(model => model.Subject).Titled("Subject");
            columns.Add(model => model.Message).Titled("Message");
            columns.Add(model => model.TimeStampSent).Titled("TimeStampSent");
        })
        .Filterable()
        .Sortable()
        .Pageable()
        )

Yes, create repro on github and I can take a look.

Do mean by creating a "repro" to create a project on github for this? Do you have a sample project for this?

Examples site can be used as an example project, if you want to check for differences in your code.

This is too much for me to go through. I will upload my simple code to a repository for you to take a look at it. I will post again once it is ready. Thanks in advance for your help.

I have created repository: https://github.com/bblair2018/Assistance.Requested.NonFactors.MVC6.Grid
This is a project where I try many new things out. Your grid controller is under "NonFactorsMVCGridController" However, the file name for that controller is "MVCGridController" I forgot to change the name of the file. The view is called "NonFactorsMVCGrid", of course.
Thanks for taking a look and please let me know what changes I need to make! I really appreciate it and looking forward to getting this to work!

Move MvcGrid views to shared folder, otherwise they can't be found.
I will fix installation example as it's only written to move to shared folder, but visual example is not updated.

I made the update, but it is still blank. Also checked in the changes. In the index file for "NonFactorsMVCGrid" has the script files at the top, otherwise they will not be read after the "@Html" code.

I also checked in the above changes, so you can see them if desired.

You moved your view to shared folder, you have to move three grid partials to the shared folder instead.

I have the shared views in the in the shared folder and the index.cshyml in the NonFactorsMVCGrid folder. I have also removed all the controllers and views not related to this project. However, this is still not working. Changes to the project have been checked in.

I just noticed that I have Nonfactors.Grid.MVC6 installed from nuget and not Nonfactors.Grid.Core.MVC6. Perhaps I need to uninstall the non core and use the core? However, in "C:\Users\bblair.nuget\packages" both core and non-core versions are there.

Put in the core version, checked it in. Still is not working for me.

I will make a pull request with a fix, so you can check that out.
And grid installs the core as a dependency so it's not shown in project files.

Thank you, looking forward to it.

I got your pull request and now merged it! I see the changes that you did, thanks for the help, it was much appreciated!