chore(e2): rhidp-6404 Add image check and relevant changes action to workflows #2575
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
The image is available at: |
|
The image is available at: |
gustavolira
force-pushed
the
skip-build-packages
branch
from
6041833 to
7dcc740
Compare
|
The image is available at: |
gustavolira
force-pushed
the
skip-build-packages
branch
2 times, most recently
from
928ede2 to
2a05276
Compare
|
The image is available at: |
|
The image is available at: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Only thing I don't like is that we're now doing the same GH checkout twice per action (first to check if we have to build, then to do the build)
🤔
if we moved the call to .github/actions/check-image-and-changes out of the check-image job and into the build-image job, then you might be able to reuse the same checkout for the build, and the step Check if build should be skipped would look at variable build-image.check-image.outputs.relevant_changes instead of needs.check-image.outputs.relevant_changes ?
|
Might have a typo somewhere...
https://github.com/redhat-developer/rhdh/actions/runs/13928032057/job/38977666439 why was the job skipped? why is it incorrectly formatted? |
gustavolira
force-pushed
the
skip-build-packages
branch
from
16fc096 to
4bc297a
Compare
|
The image is available at: |
Introduce a reusable `check-image-and-changes` composite action to determine if an image already exists and prioritize relevant changes for builds. Update workflows to integrate this action, conditionally triggering builds based on its outputs to optimize build processes. Signed-off-by: Gustavo Lira <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gustavo Lira <[email protected]>
Reorganized the workflow to include a dedicated job for checking image existence and relevant changes before building the image. Improved the logic for skipping builds when conditions are met and updated outputs to streamline data flow across steps. Removed repetitive actions and enhanced modularity for better maintainability. Signed-off-by: Gustavo Lira <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gustavo Lira <[email protected]>
Modified workflow logic to always execute build and test jobs. Added checks to conditionally skip execution when no relevant changes are detected. Signed-off-by: Gustavo Lira <[email protected]>
Modified workflow logic to always execute build and test jobs. Added checks to conditionally skip execution when no relevant changes are detected. Signed-off-by: Gustavo Lira <[email protected]>
Modified workflow logic to always execute build and test jobs. Added checks to conditionally skip execution when no relevant changes are detected. Signed-off-by: Gustavo Lira <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gustavo Lira <[email protected]>
gustavolira
force-pushed
the
skip-build-packages
branch
from
4bc297a to
5c7596d
Compare
Thanks for the suggestion! We’ve implemented the improvement by moving the .github/actions/check-image-and-changes call directly into the build-image job. This allows us to reuse the same checkout step, avoiding duplicate operations. Now, the Check if build should be skipped step references build-image.check-image.outputs.relevant_changes instead of needs.check-image.outputs.relevant_changes |
Fixed |
|
The image is available at: |
| id: check-image | ||
| uses: ./.github/actions/check-image-and-changes | ||
|
|
||
| - name: Check if build should be skipped |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
a further simplication could be to move this check into the action itself.
then the output of the check-image-and-changes is not just two booleans, but an exit code of 0 if the job can be terminated right there.
Of course your logged message would need to be something generic about the job (rather than build or test) like
echo "::notice::Skipping job: Image already exists and no relevant changes detected."
|
Did a quick google for how to exit a GH workflow if something fails and it seems we won't get the results we want with an exit 0: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/60589373/how-to-force-job-to-exit-in-github-actions-step Instead of exiting 0, we might have to label all the subsequent steps with a conditional check to see if they should run... |
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHIDP-6404
Description
Please explain the changes you made here.
Which issue(s) does this PR fix
PR acceptance criteria
Please make sure that the following steps are complete:
How to test changes / Special notes to the reviewer