ci: Skip CI checks for draft pull requests

[mtrezza]

Pull Request

• Report security issues confidentially.
• Any contribution is under this license.

Issue

Draft pull requests currently trigger the full CI workflow, spending Actions minutes on work that isn't ready for review. This follows the approach discussed in https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/120231.

Approach

• Add if: ${{ github.event_name != 'pull_request' || github.event.pull_request.draft == false }} to every job. Draft PRs skip all jobs; pushes to the protected branches and non-draft PRs run as before. The github.event_name != 'pull_request' clause guards push runs, since the draft field doesn't exist for push events.
• Add ready_for_review to the pull_request trigger types. Without it, marking a draft as ready fires an event type the workflow doesn't listen for by default, so CI wouldn't run until the next push. The default types (opened, synchronize, reopened) are re-listed because specifying types replaces the default set rather than extending it.

Behavior:

Event	Result
Push to release / alpha / beta / ...	Runs
Open or update a draft PR	All jobs skipped
Open or update a ready (non-draft) PR	Runs
Mark a draft PR ready for review	Runs

Note: GitHub does not bill for skipped jobs, so draft PRs incur no Actions charges.

Tasks

[parse-github-assistant]

🚀 Thanks for opening this pull request! We appreciate your effort in improving the project. Please let us know once your pull request is ready for review.

Tip

• Keep pull requests small. Large PRs will be rejected. Break complex features into smaller, incremental PRs.
• Use Test Driven Development. Write failing tests before implementing functionality. Ensure tests pass.
• Group code into logical blocks. Add a short comment before each block to explain its purpose.
• We offer conceptual guidance. Coding is up to you. PRs must be merge-ready for human review.
• Our review focuses on concept, not quality. PRs with code issues will be rejected. Use an AI agent.
• Human review time is precious. Avoid review ping-pong. Inspect and test your AI-generated code.

Note

Please respond to review comments from AI agents just like you would to comments from a human reviewer. Let the reviewer resolve their own comments, unless they have reviewed and accepted your commit, or agreed with your explanation for why the feedback was incorrect.

Caution

Pull requests must be written using an AI agent with human supervision. Pull requests written entirely by a human will likely be rejected, because of lower code quality, higher review effort and the higher risk of introducing bugs. Please note that AI review comments on this pull request alone do not satisfy this requirement. Our CI and AI review are safeguards, not development tools. If many issues are flagged, rethink your development approach. Invest more effort in planning and design rather than using review cycles to fix low-quality code.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The CI workflow now responds to selected pull request activity types and prevents its jobs from running for draft pull requests, while retaining execution for push events and non-draft pull requests.

Changes

CI workflow gating

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Workflow triggers and job gates .github/workflows/ci.yml	Pull request runs are limited to opened, synchronized, reopened, and ready-for-review events. Listed CI jobs skip draft pull requests while continuing to run for push events and non-draft pull requests.

Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes

---

Important

Pre-merge checks failed

Please resolve all errors before merging. Addressing warnings is optional.

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Engage In Review Feedback	❓ Inconclusive	Only a single workflow commit is present; there’s no local evidence of review comments, replies, or feedback-driven follow-up.	Provide PR discussion/comments or linked commits showing feedback was discussed and then implemented or explicitly retracted.

✅ Passed checks (6 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Security Check	✅ Passed	Only CI gating/trigger changes; no new secrets, unsafe events, or vulnerable patterns were introduced.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title uses the required ci: prefix and accurately summarizes the CI draft-PR skip behavior.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description follows the template sections and provides a clear issue, approach, and task note for this CI-only change.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.78%. Comparing base (90c2778) to head (38b6e3a).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on alpha.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##            alpha   #10610   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.78%   93.78%           
=======================================
  Files         192      192           
  Lines       16832    16832           
  Branches      248      248           
=======================================
  Hits        15786    15786           
  Misses       1025     1025           
  Partials       21       21           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[parseplatformorg]

🎉 This change has been released in version 9.10.1-alpha.6