ci: Add concurrency groups to all workflows#599
Conversation
| concurrency: | ||
| group: ${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.ref }} | ||
| cancel-in-progress: false | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM.
- If the github.ref is a version tag, we should never have this action running twice on the same github.ref, so this will have no effect.
- If the github.ref is main, and we have multiple pushes to main in a short amount of time, we want to build sequentially, and cancel some of the jobs if there are too many. We want the last push to lead to a documentation building, which should be the case with this.
| concurrency: | ||
| group: ${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.ref }} | ||
| cancel-in-progress: true | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. We want to cancel in-progress to avoid having to wait for previous checks to finish running before running new checks.
| concurrency: | ||
| group: ${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.ref }} | ||
| cancel-in-progress: false | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This workflow is a bit weird because it runs every time an issue comment is even posted (to check for a tag to claude). So I think that we want those workflows to be able to run concurrently. So I would remove the concurrency group entirely.
| concurrency: | |
| group: ${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.ref }} | |
| cancel-in-progress: false |
| concurrency: | ||
| group: ${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.ref }} | ||
| cancel-in-progress: false | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should never have this workflow triggered concurrently (it would require to publish two releases in less than 3 minutes). But if this ever happens, I don't think we want to skip any job, so I think we should remove the concurrency group here and let everything run.
| concurrency: | |
| group: ${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.ref }} | |
| cancel-in-progress: false |
| concurrency: | ||
| group: ${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.ref }} | ||
| cancel-in-progress: true | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. We only care about the latest change to the labels taking effect on the title.
No description provided.