Skip to content

Conversation

@dlaehnemann
Copy link
Member

@dlaehnemann dlaehnemann commented Dec 5, 2025

Basically, this is only until this problem's fix (which already seems to exist), is either patched and/or released in conda-libmamba-solver, probably via conda itself: conda/conda-libmamba-solver#798

The issue that I am seeing, which this pinning should solve, is this error upon trying to re-install miniforge a second time during a GitHub Action run:

Running installer...
  /usr/bin/bash /home/runner/work/_temp/8b4dfb06-0e2d-4654-a587-7651f953ce7f.sh -f -b -p /home/runner/miniconda3
  PREFIX=/home/runner/miniconda3
  Unpacking bootstrapper...
  Warning: ln: failed to create symbolic link '/home/runner/miniconda3/_conda': File exists
  
  ln: failed to create symbolic link '/home/runner/miniconda3/_conda': File exists
Error: The process '/usr/bin/bash' failed with exit code 1

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Updated conda setup configuration to use a stable version for improved build reliability.

✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.

Basically, this is only until this problem's fix (which already seems to exist), is either patched and/or released in `conda-libmamba-solver`, probably via `conda` itself:
conda/conda-libmamba-solver#798
@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 5, 2025

Important

Review skipped

Draft detected.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Updated the miniforge version from latest to a fixed version (25.9.1) in the Setup conda step with an accompanying TODO comment referencing a known issue.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Version pinning
action.yml
Replaced miniforge-version: latest with pinned version 25.9.1 and added TODO comment explaining temporary rationale with reference to known issue

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check ✅ Passed The PR title directly and clearly describes the main change: pinning miniforge to a specific working version (25.9.1) to resolve a known issue.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 73be4c1 and 73a2973.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • action.yml (1 hunks)

@dlaehnemann dlaehnemann marked this pull request as draft December 5, 2025 10:23
@dlaehnemann
Copy link
Member Author

I converted this to a draft, for now, as a rebuild of the conda-forge recipe for miniforge is already happening:
conda-forge/miniforge#838

If this fixes it, I'll close this pull request and delete it. If it doesn't, I'll investigate further.

@m-jahn
Copy link
Member

m-jahn commented Dec 5, 2025

if this get's fixed upstream, we don't need to bother about fixing it in other ways anymore. @dlaehnemann we had already a test PR + discussion going at #47 #48

@dlaehnemann
Copy link
Member Author

Ah, thanks for the pointer. This is the one place where I didn't explicitly search for any discussion of this issue, even though I obviously should have.

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants