Convert doc.yml workflow to be reusable
#103914
Conversation
| @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ permissions: | |||
| contents: read | |||
|
|
|||
| 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.
| @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ jobs: | |||
| 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.
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..
.github/workflows/reusable-docs.yml
Outdated
| #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.
|
|
||
| on: | ||
| workflow_call: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This bit is what allows to “include” this workflow into another.
cbf7985 to
3f8d6d2
Compare
|
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. |
|
Thanks for making the requested changes! @hugovk: please review the changes made to this pull request. |
|
How far back do we want to backport this (and its parent #97533), if at all? |
|
@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. |
|
As for the "parent PR" I envision that @ambv would want it fully backported because he wanted to make auto-merge painless... |
|
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. |
|
Yep, that was my thinking too. |
|
I've implemented a similar change in pypa/build recently, it seems to work well so far: pypa/build@04df94c. |
1c7f95d to
0a04207
Compare
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)
|
Thanks @webknjaz for the PR, and @pradyunsg for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.12. |
|
Thanks @webknjaz for the PR, and @pradyunsg for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.11. |
|
Sorry, @webknjaz and @pradyunsg, I could not cleanly backport this to |
|
Sorry @webknjaz and @pradyunsg, I had trouble checking out the |
|
Thanks @webknjaz for the PR, and @pradyunsg for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.10. |
|
Sorry, @webknjaz and @pradyunsg, I could not cleanly backport this to |
|
Thanks @webknjaz for the PR, and @pradyunsg for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.8. |
|
Sorry @webknjaz and @pradyunsg, I had trouble checking out the |
|
Thanks @webknjaz for the PR, and @pradyunsg for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.9. |
|
Sorry, @webknjaz and @pradyunsg, I could not cleanly backport this to |
Co-authored-by: Adam Turner <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 88d14da) Co-authored-by: Sviatoslav Sydorenko <[email protected]>
|
GH-107042 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.12 branch. |
|
GH-107043 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.11 branch. |
…) (#107043) Co-authored-by: Sviatoslav Sydorenko <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Adam Turner <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <[email protected]>. (cherry picked from commit 88d14da) (cherry picked from commit eaa6702)
…) (#107042) Co-authored-by: Sviatoslav Sydorenko <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Adam Turner <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 88d14da) (cherry picked from commit eaa6702)
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.