Skip to content

Run workflow jobs upon pushes to specific paths#1289

Merged
rdmark merged 1 commit intodevelopfrom
rdmark-test-pushx
Nov 3, 2023
Merged

Run workflow jobs upon pushes to specific paths#1289
rdmark merged 1 commit intodevelopfrom
rdmark-test-pushx

Conversation

@rdmark
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@rdmark rdmark commented Nov 3, 2023

No description provided.

@uweseimet uweseimet self-requested a review November 3, 2023 09:37
@rdmark
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

rdmark commented Nov 3, 2023

@uweseimet It seems like right now, a subsequent push with changed C++ code triggers C++ unit tests & sonar analysis. This is not what you saw in your PR?

Interestingly, it also triggers duplicate "Build ARM binaries"...

@uweseimet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rdmark You can see from the last commits in the issues_1263_1278_1283 branch what's currently happening in my case. The workflow in this branch is identical with the previous develop branch workflow, i.e. the one before the changes you have just applied for testing. At least if I am not missing something.

@rdmark
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

rdmark commented Nov 3, 2023

Ah I see the difference. It's a work branch that you pushed to remote, but not yet created a PR for...

Just as a suggestion: If you create a PR in Draft state, I think it will work as you want it to. How about using PR Drafts as part of your workflow at the point when you want to start getting feedback on your code (from Sonar, or humans)?

@uweseimet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rdmark Please see my previous comment on the draft PRs: You get emails (also the reviewers I think) whenever you commit to a branch that has a draft PR and the analysis has run. I don't want to get tons of emails. Sometimes I discard a branch and do not create a PR at all. I would not want to create dummy PRs just to get a code analysis. I want to create a (draft) PR when I am sure that my changes are worth to be merged, and not before. And I would like to have an analysis for my current branch code. Without it you miss subtle bugs that the analysis would have revealed, and you start debugging without need.

Can't we just go back to how things were before you started to change the workflow?

@uweseimet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rdmark By the way, didn't you point out that you can trigger an explicit code analysis somehow? I have not found any means to do that, e.g. for the issues_1263_1278_1283 branch.

@rdmark
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

rdmark commented Nov 3, 2023

Alright, I will put up a new PR to get us back to the previous behavior.

If you go to the Actions page and open the last job for your branch, there's a button to the top right for rerunning jobs.

@uweseimet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rdmark You can only re-run jobs that have already run. If on a branch a code analysis has never run, you cannot re-run it.

@rdmark rdmark force-pushed the rdmark-test-pushx branch from 9643dbc to d5cc103 Compare November 3, 2023 11:21
@rdmark rdmark changed the title Job push test X Run workflow jobs upon pushes to specific paths Nov 3, 2023
@sonarqubecloud
Copy link
Copy Markdown

sonarqubecloud bot commented Nov 3, 2023

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
No Duplication information No Duplication information

@rdmark rdmark merged commit b69c039 into develop Nov 3, 2023
@rdmark rdmark deleted the rdmark-test-pushx branch November 3, 2023 11:28
@uweseimet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rdmark Please tell me when the old workflow has been restored. I'm starting to lose track ;-).

@rdmark
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

rdmark commented Nov 3, 2023

I think it should be back to the previous behavior now, but let me run a few more tests before saying for sure...

@uweseimet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rdmark OK. As far as I can tell it does not yet work. The workflow files still differ from how they were in the past, which might be expected because there were probably also other changes.

@rdmark
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

rdmark commented Nov 3, 2023

Yes I made modifications to enable Sonar scanning of Python code when Python code changes. We can't go back to exactly the same configuration.

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.

2 participants