Skip to content

.github/workflows: Avoid specifying the paths-ignore keyword #2511

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

Conversation

timflannagan
Copy link
Member

Update the CI-related workflows and avoid specifying the paths-ignore
keyword. Because we have configure required status contexts through
branch protection rules, any workflow that is skipped due to path
filtering results in an unknown status, which results in tide stalling
any merge despite a PR matching the merge criteria (e.g. lgtm/approval
label present).

This is a short term fix to the solution: the long term
solution is dynamically filtering out certain file paths as a
pre-requisite job vs. statically filtering using the paths-ignore
filter, while we wait for GitHub to add this as first-class functionality.

Signed-off-by: timflannagan [email protected]

Description of the change:

Motivation for the change:

Reviewer Checklist

  • Implementation matches the proposed design, or proposal is updated to match implementation
  • Sufficient unit test coverage
  • Sufficient end-to-end test coverage
  • Docs updated or added to /doc
  • Commit messages sensible and descriptive

Update the CI-related workflows and avoid specifying the paths-ignore
keyword. Because we have configure required status contexts through
branch protection rules, any workflow that is skipped due to path
filtering results in an unknown status, which results in tide stalling
any merge despite a PR matching the merge criteria (e.g. lgtm/approval
label present).

This is a short term fix to the solution: the long term
solution is dynamically filtering out certain file paths as a
pre-requisite job vs. statically filtering using the paths-ignore
filter, while we wait for GitHub to add this as first-class functionality.

Signed-off-by: timflannagan <[email protected]>
@perdasilva
Copy link
Collaborator

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 7, 2021
Copy link
Collaborator

@perdasilva perdasilva left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Copy link
Member

@dinhxuanvu dinhxuanvu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 7, 2021

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dinhxuanvu, perdasilva, timflannagan

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Dec 7, 2021
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 285a535 into operator-framework:master Dec 7, 2021
@timflannagan timflannagan deleted the ci/remove-path-ignore branch December 7, 2021 23:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants