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

Split CI and publish runs into separate workflows #134

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 12, 2024
Merged

Conversation

rnestler
Copy link
Member

@rnestler rnestler commented Apr 12, 2024

The workflow got completely stopped, since it contains scheduled triggers and there was no activity on the repository for months. By splitting that, we avoid the CI workflow from breaking.

@rnestler rnestler requested a review from dbrgn April 12, 2024 12:43
@rnestler rnestler self-assigned this Apr 12, 2024
@rnestler rnestler requested a review from a team April 12, 2024 12:43
@rnestler
Copy link
Member Author

I think the issue was something different: The periodic workflow was shown as stopped in https://github.com/SpaceApi/website/actions/workflows/ci.yml since there was no activity on the repository for 3 months. Can we just remove the scheduled run? I'm not sure what the point of it should be.

Or maybe split the ci and publish workflows and only schedule the publish workflow.

@rnestler rnestler changed the title Fix triggering of CI on pull requests Split CI and publish runs into separate workflows Apr 12, 2024
Apparently the branches key must be present.
It doesn't make sense to extract the branch name if we only run on one
branch.
Master has the separate publish workflow.
@dbrgn
Copy link
Contributor

dbrgn commented Apr 12, 2024

Oof, that's the issue... Yeah, I usually click on those links in the nag e-mails, but probably forgot it once.

The idea of the scheduled workflow was that containers are re-built regularly (security updates). Not sure how important that is for a static website.

@dbrgn
Copy link
Contributor

dbrgn commented Apr 12, 2024

Looks good to me, thanks!

The branch name might still be useful if we want to publish separate branches as separate images, but I guess master is sufficient for now.

Note: I'm fairly sure that the first commit is wrong (the branches key is not required AFAIK), but it doesn't hurt to specify it (assuming that it's referring to the PR target).

@dbrgn dbrgn merged commit 3aee27b into master Apr 12, 2024
1 check passed
@dbrgn dbrgn deleted the fix-ci-trigger branch April 12, 2024 21:45
@dbrgn dbrgn mentioned this pull request Apr 12, 2024
@rnestler
Copy link
Member Author

Note: I'm fairly sure that the first commit is wrong (the branches key is not required AFAIK), but it doesn't hurt to specify it (assuming that it's referring to the PR target).

Yeah I noticed this as well and reverted the change when splitting the workflows.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants