⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major

Major: Workflow fails if generate script produces no changes.

The workflow detects output via git diff --name-only (line 43) and uploads artifacts with if-no-files-found: error (line 49). If the generated output is already up-to-date (no changes), the job fails, which contradicts the use case where this workflow may be idempotent.

Additionally, line 39 runs the generate script with no explicit error handling—if it fails, the workflow continues to the artifact upload step.

Consider:

1. For idempotent behavior: Use if-no-files-found: warn instead of error to allow the workflow to complete gracefully when no changes are detected.
2. For explicit error handling: Add set -e or explicit checks after the generate step.

Apply this diff:

      - name: Generate (${{ matrix.os }})
        run: python crates/rustpython_doc_db/generate.py

      - name: Detect output file
        id: diff
        run: echo "diff=$(git diff --name-only)" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT

      - uses: actions/upload-artifact@330a01c490aca151604b8cf639adc76d48f6c5d4 # v5.0.0
        with:
          name: doc-db-${{ env.PYTHON_VERSION }}-${{ matrix.os }}
          path: ${{ steps.diff.outputs.diff }}
-         if-no-files-found: error
+         if-no-files-found: warn

Based on learnings, the maintainers prefer simplicity and accept workflows that may fail gracefully in edge cases; however, the intent here is unclear.

.github/workflows/update-doc-db.yml lines 38-50: the workflow will fail when the
generate script produces no git-diff (upload-artifact uses if-no-files-found:
error) and also doesn't stop early if the generate script itself fails; change
the upload step to use if-no-files-found: warn to make idempotent runs succeed
with no changes, and make the generate step fail fast by running the script
under a strict shell (e.g., add set -e before running the python command or
check the script exit status and exit non-zero on failure) so the job correctly
surfaces generation errors.

- is a namespace split, _ is a (sort of) whitespace split

I think this is worth discussing more. I haven't seen a single project that has both - and _ in it's name. I think we should stick to one separator and use it (I'm in favor of _)

We already have that names for every crates.
I don't think mixing rustpython- and rustpython_ for different crates gives any value.

Actually I was missing the fundamental question about this change.
We'd better to keep using the previous crate name rustpython-doc. Moving crate doesn't mean renaming(creating a new) crate.

We already have that names for every crates. I don't think mixing rustpython- and rustpython_ for different crates gives any value.

think we should choose one sperator and stick to it, as long as it's consistent.

Actually I was missing the fundamental question about this change. We'd better to keep using the previous crate name rustpython-doc. Moving crate doesn't mean renaming(creating a new) crate.

Yeah, ofc

think we should choose one sperator and stick to it, as long as it's consistent.

I understand that there’s some validity to that point.
However, it’s not fair to justify it simply by calling it “consistent,” because the fact that all RustPython crates share the rustpython- prefix is already a form of consistency in itself.
It’s just a different kind of consistency.
If these two forms of consistency conflict, I would reject introducing a new crate with a different prefix.