gha: Run static-checks on self-hosted runners conditionally #9020
Conversation
BbolroC
force-pushed
the
ok-to-test-static-checks-but-x86
branch
from
9b5a409
to
7767700
Compare
BbolroC
force-pushed
the
ok-to-test-static-checks-but-x86
branch
4 times, most recently
from
7b31e78
to
e04aa1b
Compare
Due to the restrictions on instance provisioning for self-hosted runners, performing static checks (36 jobs at the time of writing) on them each time a PR is updated could significantly burden them, consequently slowing down the entire CI system. To address this, the decision is to trigger these checks only when an 'ok-to-test' label is added. Meanwhile, the checks for x86_64, which are supported by GitHub-hosted runners, will remain unchanged. Fixes: kata-containers#8998 Signed-off-by: Hyounggyu Choi <Hyounggyu.Choi@ibm.com>
BbolroC
force-pushed
the
ok-to-test-static-checks-but-x86
branch
from
e04aa1b
to
40b2b2a
Compare
|
All checks are passed as planned. |
|
/test |
|
Hi @stevenhorsman ! We will need to re-do the list of required jobs as the actual |
I can disable them now and then in ~10 days we'll re-enable them to give people grace period to re-base? |
Hmm, given there are so many, I might raise this on the AC meeting first. |
Yeah, it would be better to discuss on AC. I completely overlooked the actual PRs, they will need all to be rebased :( |
|
Yeah, again, this is something @gkurz also wanted to discuss on the AC meeting. 😭 |
wainersm
added
do-not-merge
Due to the restrictions on instance provisioning for self-hosted runners, performing static checks (36 jobs at the time of writing) on them each time a PR is updated could significantly burden them, consequently slowing down the entire CI system. To address this, the decision is to trigger these checks only when an 'ok-to-test' label is added. Meanwhile, the checks for x86_64, which are supported by GitHub-hosted runners, will remain unchanged.
Fixes: #8998
Signed-off-by: Hyounggyu Choi Hyounggyu.Choi@ibm.com