vorburger / www.fineract.dev

https://www.fineract.dev
Apache License 2.0
16 stars 1 forks source link

Deploy on Fineract.dev GitHub action on apache/fineract failed: Access Not Configured. Cloud Build has not been used in project #3

Closed vorburger closed 3 years ago

vorburger commented 3 years ago

@awasum pointed out (by DM) that https://github.com/apache/fineract/runs/1625922368 has:

ERROR: (gcloud.beta.builds.triggers.run) FAILED_PRECONDITION: generic::failed_precondition: Access Not Configured. Cloud Build has not been used in project *** before or it is disabled. Enable it by visiting https://console.developers.google.com/apis/api/cloudbuild.googleapis.com/overview?project=*** then retry. If you enabled this API recently, wait a few minutes for the action to propagate to our systems and retry.
Error: Process completed with exit code 1.

I'll look into what's going on here (and update this issue to keep a public record).

vorburger commented 3 years ago

About 2-3 weeks ago (?) I changed (tighten) the permissions for Fineract.dev on GCP, could that be causing this?

https://github.com/apache/fineract/actions?query=workflow%3A%22Deploy+to+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fineract.dev%22 is the right place to look at in this case - it shows that the Deploy on Fineract.dev GitHub action ran successfully 3h ago, and then just failed once. So the changed I've made a few weeks ago is clearly not related to this.

https://demo.fineract.dev/fineract-provider/actuator/info shows that we are currently 3 commits behind on https://github.com/apache/fineract/commits/develop.

This may well be just some temporary issue? I've just merged https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1554 to re-test, let's wait and see if the Deploy on Fineract.dev GitHub action for what works...

vorburger commented 3 years ago

https://github.com/apache/fineract/actions/runs/452812212 is green.

https://demo.fineract.dev/fineract-provider/actuator/info proves Fineract.dev is now up to date with https://github.com/apache/fineract/commits/develop again.

So this error (above) seems to be a transient problem. We can ignore it when it happens next time (if it's the exact same message).

All good!