chore(ci): refactor to make conditional checks more robust #11558
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Josh-Walker-GM
added
release:chore
Josh-Walker-GM
force-pushed
the
jgmw/chore-ci-rework-conditional-logic
branch
9 times, most recently
from
b436d76
to
f7b7274
Compare
Josh-Walker-GM
force-pushed
the
jgmw/chore-ci-rework-conditional-logic
branch
from
f7b7274
to
57aff2d
Compare
|
I don't think this actually changes anything. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a bit of an experiment so expect a couple follow ups and some general churn on this area of code or indeed for this to all just get binned.
The issue we have is that we have required checks for PRs. GitHub requires these checks to run and pass before allowing you to merge (members with permission can of course override but yuck). The issue is that we want to only run a subset of CI based on what changes - e.g. we don't care about code testing if it's just a docs update. However, to meet the GitHub requirement we need a job with that name to run.
Currently we follow some now removed GitHub advice to have a duplicate job with the same name and conditionally either run the job that actually does the tests or the job that simply passes.
It's not possible to have a step within a job short circuit and pass the full job early.
This is still WIP but not marked as draft so I can see what GitHub thinks about merging with the required checks.