Title run GitHub Actions only on specific branches
Priority wish Status resolved
Superseder Nosy List jendrik, malte, silvan, thomas
Assigned To jendrik Keywords
Optional summary
Pull request:

Created on 2021-07-08.14:27:03 by jendrik, last changed by jendrik.

Pull request:
msg10659 (view) Author: jendrik Date: 2022-03-10.10:50:17
Alright, merged :-)
msg10658 (view) Author: malte Date: 2022-03-10.10:43:54
From my side too.
msg10657 (view) Author: silvan Date: 2022-03-10.10:20:58
From my side, yes.
msg10656 (view) Author: jendrik Date: 2022-03-09.21:36:39
Yes, I think this change will be beneficial for everyone who pushes Fast Downward clones to GitHub, since they will not exhaust their Actions quota. And it will save lots of unneeded CPU cycles :-)

I merged with the latest revision and added a changelog entry.

Can I go ahead and merge this?
msg10638 (view) Author: thomas Date: 2022-03-07.15:51:24
I'm OK if this is merged as initially proposed. It won't do anything for me (neither good nor bad), so as long as it improves things for someone else I'm happy with this change.
msg10637 (view) Author: malte Date: 2022-03-07.14:23:10
From my side, it's enough if someone is happy and nobody is unhappy with it, but from the discussion it looks like maybe the discussion between Jendrik and Thomas is not yet resolved. If we want to integrate this, it needs a changelog entry.
msg10636 (view) Author: silvan Date: 2022-03-07.12:43:28
Thomas also seemed to like it, didn't he? I agree that it would be good to not always run the full set of actions on each commit, but I can't think of any simple criterion to exclude certain commits from being tested.
msg10635 (view) Author: jendrik Date: 2022-03-07.12:13:49
I still like the proposed change in the pull request, but so far it seems to be only me :-)
msg10634 (view) Author: malte Date: 2022-03-07.11:38:10
Hi all, is this stuck in discussion? Any way to get it unstuck? Or have you given up on this?
msg10364 (view) Author: jendrik Date: 2021-07-12.17:39:54
I also don't know a way of achieving this. Note also, that not all issues require tags at all. In these cases, any push could be the one we want to integrate, so we need to test all pushes, regardless of whether tests for earlier pushes failed or not.
msg10363 (view) Author: thomas Date: 2021-07-12.17:18:28
I agree that what I proposed won't work well in practice. 

My issue with the initial proposal is that it simply won't do anything for me because I usually either work on issues or work on a Fast Downward clone where I disable github actions right after cloning (I won't have to do that anymore, so it will safe me a little bit of effort).

If it is somehow possible, I would like it if github actions only run on a subset of the commits to an issue branch, and for me personally the subset of tagged commits would be perfect. However, I agree that tagging a commit just to see if github actions work is not a good solution at all. With this in mind, a solution that runs github actions 

1. if the commit is tagged or 
2. on any commit if the last github action failed

would be nice, but I'm not very confident this can be achieved.
msg10362 (view) Author: jendrik Date: 2021-07-09.11:40:32
I'm having a hard time figuring out the meaning of the docs, so I'm not sure that your configuration from msg10361 would behave as you'd like it to. But let's discuss what we want first before figuring out how to achieve that.

Instead of all pushes to an issue branch, you're proposing to test only the pushes whose last commit is tagged with "issue*", right? In this setup, let's assume that issue2000-v2 fails the tests. Wouldn't we then have to create tag issue2000-v3 just to check that the tests pass now? That sounds a bit tedious to me. Also, note that issue2000-v3 will only be tested if there's no later commit in the push.
msg10361 (view) Author: thomas Date: 2021-07-08.18:37:02
Yes, you're right, branch requires the push or pull_request trigger. What about using the "tags" configuration:

        branches: [main, release-*]
        branches: [main, release-*]
        tags: [issue*]

(This requires tags to also follow a naming pattern, which I am not sure is the case for everyone).

Additionally, we could use "paths-ignore" to exclude tests for commits that only affect parts of the repository that aren't tested anyway (not sure if this exists).

That said, I'm also fine with going with the solution as proposed initially by Jendrik if it is useful for some, it just will rarely do anything for me.
msg10360 (view) Author: jendrik Date: 2021-07-08.18:14:38
Yes, my explanation was off. But still, I think "branches" can only be set for "push" and "pull_request":
msg10358 (view) Author: thomas Date: 2021-07-08.18:00:39
I cannot find what you are referring to. The third example on that page uses "page_build" and "release", and clicking on "Events that trigger workflows" in the menu on the left shows me many options. Am I missing something?
msg10357 (view) Author: jendrik Date: 2021-07-08.17:51:54
I don't think the syntax allows for this (, since "on" can only be followed by "push" and/or "pull_request".
msg10356 (view) Author: thomas Date: 2021-07-08.15:40:30
I agree this is about personal preferences. Personally, I even find my previous suggestion to busy and, now that I looked into some of the possibilities of triggering github actions, I'd even go with the following:

        branches: [main, release-*]
        branches: [main, release-*]
        branches: [main, issue*, release-*]

If I got this right, "create" triggers the actions when either a branch is created or when a tag is created, which (at least for me) is a relevant subset of commits that I'd like to be checked (and which would significantly decrease the build minutes I'm spending).
msg10355 (view) Author: jendrik Date: 2021-07-08.14:50:20
I think this is a matter of personal preference. I'm indifferent and can live with both solutions.
msg10353 (view) Author: thomas Date: 2021-07-08.14:42:00
Is it "issue*" on push really necessary? As long as I haven't opened a pull request, I'd rather not have these checks run all the time, and since we always create a pull request before merging there will always be a test before the actual merging.
msg10352 (view) Author: jendrik Date: 2021-07-08.14:39:37
In today's meeting we agreed that the change makes sense for us.

Can someone please inspect the pull request at ?
msg10351 (view) Author: jendrik Date: 2021-07-08.14:27:02
Currently, all Fast Downward GitHub clones run all CI tests. This quickly consumes the build minutes quota for private repositories and is probably overkill for most public repositories. To save people the trouble from exhausting their build minutes, having to disable the GitHub Actions manually and most importantly to avoid unnecessary compute, I propose to run the tests only for specific branches, i.e., I propose to change

    on: [push, pull_request]


        branches: [main, issue*, release-*]
        branches: [main, issue*, release-*]
Date User Action Args
2022-03-10 10:50:17jendriksetstatus: reviewing -> resolved
messages: + msg10659
2022-03-10 10:43:54maltesetmessages: + msg10658
2022-03-10 10:20:58silvansetmessages: + msg10657
2022-03-09 21:36:39jendriksetmessages: + msg10656
2022-03-07 15:51:24thomassetmessages: + msg10638
2022-03-07 14:23:10maltesetmessages: + msg10637
2022-03-07 12:43:28silvansetmessages: + msg10636
2022-03-07 12:13:49jendriksetmessages: + msg10635
2022-03-07 11:38:10maltesetmessages: + msg10634
2021-07-12 17:39:57jendriksetstatus: chatting -> reviewing
messages: + msg10364
summary: Pull request:
2021-07-12 17:18:29thomassetmessages: + msg10363
2021-07-09 11:40:33jendriksetmessages: + msg10362
2021-07-08 18:37:03thomassetmessages: + msg10361
2021-07-08 18:14:38jendriksetmessages: + msg10360
2021-07-08 18:00:39thomassetmessages: + msg10358
2021-07-08 17:51:56jendriksetmessages: + msg10357
2021-07-08 15:48:24silvansetnosy: + silvan
2021-07-08 15:40:31thomassetmessages: + msg10356
2021-07-08 14:50:20jendriksetstatus: unread -> chatting
messages: + msg10355
2021-07-08 14:42:00thomassetstatus: reviewing -> unread
messages: + msg10353
2021-07-08 14:39:37jendriksetstatus: unread -> reviewing
messages: + msg10352
2021-07-08 14:31:45thomassetnosy: + thomas
2021-07-08 14:27:03jendrikcreate