GHA: old workflows still referred as required when they are updated with a different name

[BbolroC]

Which feature do you think can be improved?

As part of the CI migration to GHA, #8485 is to newly add the static-checks workflows for s390x on top of x86_64. This leads to an update on the existing workflow name like: (e.g.

• From build-checks (agent, make check)
• To Static checks / build-checks (agent, make check, ubuntu-20.04)
  )

It was expected that the old one is renamed, but the old one still appears together with the new one in the checks status keeping its status as required, which is never triggered by any events. This prevents the PR from being merged.

There are 2 solutions for this:

• [1st] When the PR is mergerd, to encourage other PRs open at the time of changing the settings to rebase themselves onto the main branch
• [2nd] To mark the old ones as non-required and keep the changed settings for sometime (around a week) while letting other PRs get merged, and get the non-required checks back to required again

The 1st approach incurs unnecessary maintenance overheads while the 2nd one could have chance to get a PR which does not pass the static check merged.

Thinking that we will have a similar PR for aarch64 and ppc64le, we have to make the same efforts three times for the 1st approach while just one-week careful review is required for the 2nd one when the PRs for three architectures are ready.

This issue is raised for the collaboration of @BbolroC, @jongwu and @Amulyam24 for the 2nd approach.

When the PR for aarch64 and ppc64le is ready, I would be grateful to leave a comment here. Thanks.

Relevant Slack conversation: https://katacontainers.slack.com/archives/C879ACQ00/p1700814859695369

[jongwu]

Hi @BbolroC -, thanks for your effort for this.

Sorry for that I'm not very clear with your second solusion. What should I do to catch up it? Is there an example?

[BbolroC]

Hi @BbolroC -, thanks for your effort for this.

Sorry for that I'm not very clear with your second solusion. What should I do to catch up it? Is there an example?

The detailed explanation has been delivered via Slack.

What this issue wants you and @Amulyam24 to do is to post a link for your PR regarding the static checks migration for aarch64 and ppc64le when it is ready. Then the community will merge 3 PRs at the same time and go with the 2nd approach. Thanks!

[BbolroC]

Update: aarch64 is ready since #8545 has been incorporated into #8485

[BbolroC]

I am closing this because #8485 has been merged.