Convert doc.yml workflow to be reusable#103914
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Conversation
| concurrency: | ||
| group: ${{github.workflow }}-${{github.head_ref || github.run_id }} | ||
| group: ${{github.workflow }}-${{github.head_ref || github.run_id }}-reusable |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This collides with the “parent” workflow if it's exactly the same, which is why it was required to introduce some difference.
| Misc/** | ||
| .github/workflows/reusable-docs.yml | ||
| - name: Check for docs changes | ||
| if: >- |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If this step is skipped, the job output above will fall back to false.
| runs-on: ubuntu-latest | ||
| timeout-minutes: 10 | ||
| outputs: | ||
| run-docs: ${{steps.docs-changes.outputs.run-docs || false }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The part after || is only used as a fallback when the first part of the expression is empty (like when that step didn't even get executed).
| filter: | | ||
| Doc/** | ||
| Misc/** | ||
| .github/workflows/reusable-docs.yml |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This reimplements what was implemented through paths:.
| check-docs: | ||
| name: 📝 | ||
| needs: check_source | ||
| if: fromJSON(needs.check_source.outputs.run-docs) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The job above sets either true or false as strings, parsing that as JSON allows not having equality checks.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I made the workflow file name prefixed with reusable- to start a convention that would help distinguish standalone workflows from the “inclusion snippets”.
| on: | ||
| workflow_call: | ||
| workflow_dispatch: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I kept this to make it possible to still trigger just this workflow separately, via a manual request.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@hugovk this is the only bit I wasn't sure about — is it useful to keep this trigger at all. If not, deleting it could improve maintainability..
| #push: | ||
| # branches: | ||
| # - 'main' | ||
| # - '3.11' | ||
| # - '3.10' | ||
| # - '3.9' | ||
| # - '3.8' | ||
| # - '3.7' | ||
| # paths: | ||
| # - 'Doc/**' | ||
| pull_request: | ||
| branches: | ||
| - 'main' | ||
| - '3.11' | ||
| - '3.10' | ||
| - '3.9' | ||
| - '3.8' | ||
| - '3.7' | ||
| paths: | ||
| - 'Doc/**' | ||
| - 'Misc/**' | ||
| - '.github/workflows/doc.yml' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I reimplemented the filtering on the calling side. Dropping the pull_request trigger means that it won't run standalone on PRs, but it will run via inclusion into the main build workflow.
| name: 📝 | ||
| on: | ||
| workflow_call: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This bit is what allows to “include” this workflow into another.
webknjazforce-pushed the maintenance/gha-reusable-docs-workflow branch 3 times, most recently from cbf7985 to 3f8d6d2Compare
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
bedevere-bot commented Apr 30, 2023
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated. Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase |
All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement. |
webknjaz commented May 2, 2023
bedevere-bot commented May 2, 2023
Thanks for making the requested changes! @hugovk: please review the changes made to this pull request. |
hugovk commented May 10, 2023
How far back do we want to backport this (and its parent #97533), if at all? |
webknjaz commented May 10, 2023
@hugovk are there huge differences? I think it's okay to backport all the way back to 3.7, if the difference isn't big. Even if it is, I'm willing to explore solving all the cherry-picking conflicts, if necessary. |
webknjaz commented May 10, 2023
As for the "parent PR" I envision that @ambv would want it fully backported because he wanted to make auto-merge painless... |
hugovk commented May 11, 2023
The general policy is to only backport non-security things for bugfix branches (i.e. 3.11), but CI changes can usually go further back because we need to test older security branches (i.e. 3.7-3.10) when we do get security fixes, and keeping them in sync makes backporting easier. https://devguide.python.org/versions/ So we're probably fine backporting to 3.7, and we can always check with the release managers. |
webknjaz commented May 11, 2023
Yep, that was my thinking too. |
webknjaz commented May 24, 2023
I've implemented a similar change in pypa/build recently, it seems to work well so far: pypa/build@04df94c. |
webknjazforce-pushed the maintenance/gha-reusable-docs-workflow branch 2 times, most recently from 1c7f95d to 0a04207Compare
webknjaz commented May 31, 2023
This is necessary because paths with whitespaces tend to crash said action[[1]][[2]][[3]]. Also, we don't need to use JSON as it's harder to parse while the value isn't used except for the emptiness check. The change fixes [[4]] [1]: https://github.com/Ana06/get-changed-files#get-all-changed-files-as-space-delimited [2]: python#103914 (comment) [3]: python#103914 (comment) [4]: python#103914 (comment)
This is necessary because paths with whitespaces tend to crash said action[[1]][[2]][[3]]. Also, we don't need to use JSON as it's harder to parse while the value isn't used except for the emptiness check. The change fixes [[4]] [1]: https://github.com/Ana06/get-changed-files#get-all-changed-files-as-space-delimited [2]: python#103914 (comment) [3]: python#103914 (comment) [4]: python#103914 (comment)
pablogsal added needs backport to 3.11 
miss-islington commented Jul 22, 2023
Thanks @webknjaz for the PR, and @pradyunsg for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.12. |
miss-islington commented Jul 22, 2023
Thanks @webknjaz for the PR, and @pradyunsg for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.11. |
miss-islington commented Jul 22, 2023
Sorry, @webknjaz and @pradyunsg, I could not cleanly backport this to |
miss-islington commented Jul 22, 2023
Sorry @webknjaz and @pradyunsg, I had trouble checking out the |
miss-islington commented Jul 22, 2023
Thanks @webknjaz for the PR, and @pradyunsg for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.10. |
miss-islington commented Jul 22, 2023
Sorry, @webknjaz and @pradyunsg, I could not cleanly backport this to |
miss-islington commented Jul 22, 2023
Thanks @webknjaz for the PR, and @pradyunsg for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.8. |
miss-islington commented Jul 22, 2023
Sorry @webknjaz and @pradyunsg, I had trouble checking out the |
miss-islington commented Jul 22, 2023
Thanks @webknjaz for the PR, and @pradyunsg for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.9. |
miss-islington commented Jul 22, 2023
Sorry, @webknjaz and @pradyunsg, I could not cleanly backport this to |
pablogsal removed needs backport to 3.8 needs backport to 3.10 Co-authored-by: Adam Turner <9087854+AA-Turner@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <hugovk@users.noreply.github.com> (cherry picked from commit 88d14da) Co-authored-by: Sviatoslav Sydorenko <wk.cvs.github@sydorenko.org.ua>
bedevere-bot commented Jul 22, 2023
GH-107042 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.12 branch. |
bedevere-bot commented Jul 22, 2023
GH-107043 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.11 branch. |
8 participants
This patch is meant to simplify the maintenance of multiple complex workflow definitions that are tied together into a single workflow later on.
It is separated out of #97533 for atomicity.