Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Correct WIP and no ci label usage #825

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 23, 2024
Merged

Correct WIP and no ci label usage #825

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 23, 2024

Conversation

pagrubel
Copy link
Collaborator

@pagrubel pagrubel commented Apr 18, 2024 •
edited
Loading

This PR fixes github actions to run CI on 'WIP' labeled PR's and not on PR's with 'no ci' label.
Also the 'WIP (no-lint)' will only run pylama.

Addresses #821

@pagrubel pagrubel added WIP (no-ci) Don't run any CI for this PR WIP Work in progress WIP (lint-only) Only run the linter in CI, nothing else and removed WIP (no-ci) Don't run any CI for this PR WIP Work in progress WIP (lint-only) Only run the linter in CI, nothing else labels Apr 18, 2024
@pagrubel
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I need to fix the no-lint label actions

@pagrubel pagrubel added WIP (lint-only) Only run the linter in CI, nothing else WIP (no-ci) Don't run any CI for this PR WIP Work in progress and removed WIP Work in progress WIP (lint-only) Only run the linter in CI, nothing else WIP (no-ci) Don't run any CI for this PR labels Apr 19, 2024
@pagrubel pagrubel force-pushed the issue821/fix-WIP-no-ci-labels branch from 1b128b1 to b231702 Compare April 20, 2024 00:32
@pagrubel pagrubel requested a review from jtronge April 20, 2024 00:36
@pagrubel pagrubel removed the WIP (no-ci) Don't run any CI for this PR label Apr 20, 2024
@pagrubel
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@jtronge This is ready for review

@jtronge jtronge added WIP (no-ci) Don't run any CI for this PR WIP Work in progress labels Apr 23, 2024
@pagrubel pagrubel added WIP (no-ci) Don't run any CI for this PR WIP (lint-only) Only run the linter in CI, nothing else WIP Work in progress and removed WIP Work in progress WIP (no-ci) Don't run any CI for this PR WIP (lint-only) Only run the linter in CI, nothing else labels Apr 23, 2024
@pagrubel
Fix github actions for Work in Progress labels
175dead 
    'WIP' - Work in Progress, all github CI actions will run
    'WIP (no-ci)' - Work in Progress, no github CI actions will run
    'WIP (lint-only)' - Work in Progress, only pylama will run
@pagrubel pagrubel force-pushed the issue821/fix-WIP-no-ci-labels branch from 8183f05 to 175dead Compare April 23, 2024 20:04
@pagrubel pagrubel added WIP (lint-only) Only run the linter in CI, nothing else WIP (no-ci) Don't run any CI for this PR and removed WIP Work in progress WIP (lint-only) Only run the linter in CI, nothing else WIP (no-ci) Don't run any CI for this PR labels Apr 23, 2024
@pagrubel
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@jtronge This PR should be ready.

@jtronge jtronge added WIP (no-ci) Don't run any CI for this PR WIP Work in progress WIP (lint-only) Only run the linter in CI, nothing else and removed WIP (no-ci) Don't run any CI for this PR WIP Work in progress WIP (lint-only) Only run the linter in CI, nothing else labels Apr 23, 2024
jtronge
jtronge approved these changes Apr 23, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@jtronge jtronge left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks good. WIP (no-ci) and WIP (no-lint) seem to be working as expected.

@pagrubel pagrubel merged commit 6a14f4a into develop Apr 23, 2024
86 checks passed
@pagrubel pagrubel deleted the issue821/fix-WIP-no-ci-labels branch April 23, 2024 20:55
@pagrubel pagrubel mentioned this pull request Apr 23, 2024
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@jtronge jtronge jtronge approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@pagrubel @jtronge