Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CI: Make jobs more responsive to canceling #36617

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 17, 2023

Conversation

mkoeppe
Copy link
Member

@mkoeppe mkoeppe commented Oct 31, 2023

... by replacing always() by success() || failure(), except for steps such as uploading / printing out logs or similar artifacts that have already been built.

Even upon canceling a workflow (manually or automatically when a new commit has been pushed to the same branch), a new step that uses if: always() .... will still be started, which can clog the GH Actions pipeline.

📝 Checklist

  • The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory.
  • The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
  • I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
  • I have created tests covering the changes.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.

⌛ Dependencies

Copy link
Collaborator

@kwankyu kwankyu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Member Author

mkoeppe commented Nov 1, 2023

Thanks!

vbraun pushed a commit to vbraun/sage that referenced this pull request Nov 2, 2023
    
... by replacing `always()` by `success() || failure()`, except for
steps such as uploading / printing out logs or similar artifacts that
have already been built.

Even upon canceling a workflow (manually or automatically when a new
commit has been pushed to the same branch), a new step that uses `if:
always() ....` will still be started, which can clog the GH Actions
pipeline.

<!-- ^^^^^
Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title.
Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below.
For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to
calculate 1+1"
-->
<!-- Describe your changes here in detail -->

<!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For
example "Fixes sagemath#12345". -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately. -->

### 📝 Checklist

<!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately -->
<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
<!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. -->

- [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory.
- [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
- [ ] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
- [ ] I have created tests covering the changes.
- [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly.

### ⌛ Dependencies

<!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on
- sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency
- sagemath#34567: ...
-->

<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
    
URL: sagemath#36617
Reported by: Matthias Köppe
Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee
@mkoeppe mkoeppe mentioned this pull request Nov 3, 2023
5 tasks
@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented Nov 5, 2023

Merge conflict

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 5, 2023

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit 6c0e583; changes) is ready! 🎉

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants