fkirc / skip-duplicate-actions

Save time and cost when using GitHub Actions
Other
475 stars 40 forks source link

feat: do not skip merge group #329

Closed wahtique closed 1 year ago

wahtique commented 1 year ago
koppor commented 1 year ago

There are some checks failing. If using this PR ( `uses: wahtique/skip-duplicate-actions@2e9b67bfb35498c7753464fb193af7233a41b164``), I get

Error: Elements in 'do_not_skip' must be one of "pull_request", "push", "workflow_dispatch", "schedule", "release"
fkirc commented 1 year ago

Thank you for submitting the PR!

fkirc commented 1 year ago

I cannot merge it without the compiled JS, we need the compiled JS updated for this to work

fkirc commented 1 year ago

Merged, thank you for updating the JS!

paescuj commented 1 year ago

Thanks for the PR @wahtique!

Sorry for my late & post-merge comment, but

  • add merge_group to default value sfor do-not-skip triggers : else, worfklow will be skipped when the PR is added to a merge queue since it just ran before

doesn't it make sense that it is skipped? 😄

paescuj commented 1 year ago

@fkirc WDYT about this https://github.com/fkirc/skip-duplicate-actions/pull/329#issuecomment-1753304578? If the tree hash is the same in merge group it makes sense to skip it IMO? However, I totally agree with the addition of merge_group to do_not_skip 👍

wahtique commented 1 year ago

In response to https://github.com/fkirc/skip-duplicate-actions/pull/329#issuecomment-1753304578

That was some time ago but use case was :

Possible fixes would be

fkirc commented 1 year ago

@fkirc WDYT about this #329 (comment)? If the tree hash is the same in merge group it makes sense to skip it IMO? However, I totally agree with the addition of merge_group to do_not_skip 👍

I would agree to skip if a tree hash is in the same merge group, but I do not know how to implement it at the moment. So right now I believe the „do_not_skip“ is the easiest workaround.

fkirc commented 1 year ago

@fkirc WDYT about this #329 (comment)? If the tree hash is the same in merge group it makes sense to skip it IMO? However, I totally agree with the addition of merge_group to do_not_skip 👍

I would agree to skip if a tree hash is in the same merge group, but I do not know how to implement it at the moment. So right now I believe the „do_not_skip“ is the easiest workaround.