Skip to content

fix: ensure make gen runs on any changes #15253

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 28, 2024
Merged

fix: ensure make gen runs on any changes #15253

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 1 addition & 2 deletions .github/workflows/ci.yaml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -233,8 +233,7 @@ jobs:
gen:
timeout-minutes: 8
runs-on: ${{ github.repository_owner == 'coder' && 'depot-ubuntu-22.04-8' || 'ubuntu-latest' }}
needs: changes
if: needs.changes.outputs.docs-only == 'true' || needs.changes.outputs.ci == 'true' || github.ref == 'refs/heads/main'
Comment on lines -236 to -237
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we can just remove the if and needs both. always() is used when we want to run even if the previous job fails.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it's worth making it explicit here, it seems quite difficult to find the documentation that says the default condition is always() and not success().

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The default is success(), I think. Why do we need always()?

Copy link
Member Author

@ethanndickson ethanndickson Oct 28, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The old condition didn't check if the previous job had succeeded (it just waited for changes to finish, which always succeeded) so I don't think we need to start checking it now. My understanding is that with success() gen CI wouldn't run if lint failed? Which would mean it would wait for lint to finish, when they could just be started concurrently (especially since gen is one of the faster jobs). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

if: always()
steps:
- name: Harden Runner
uses: step-security/harden-runner@91182cccc01eb5e619899d80e4e971d6181294a7 # v2.10.1
Expand Down
Loading