[SPARK-34053][INFRA] Cancel the previous build #31098
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
dongjoon-hyun
commented
Jan 8, 2021
| # In order to fetch changed files | ||
| with: | ||
| fetch-depth: 0 | ||
| - uses: n1hility/cancel-previous-runs@v2 |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This one seems to be not allowed as of now.
Member
Author
|
I'm trying to test the suggestion, but it seems this is not available for now. |
This was referenced Jan 9, 2021
dongjoon-hyun
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 11, 2021
Similar to: #31098 apache/calcite#2318 (solution suggestted by vlsi - apache/pulsar#9154 (comment)) I used the action, which was maintained by potiuk instead of the original author, for two reasons: - the original action was abandoned and is not supported (Proof: n1hility/cancel-previous-runs#7) - this action works with forks. The original action only worked when the contribution was run in the same repository and the action had a token with full accesses. > If you use forks, you should create a separate "Cancelling" workflow_run triggered workflow. The workflow_run should be responsible for all canceling actions. The examples below show the possible ways the action can be utilized. ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR aims to reduce the GitHub Action usage by cancelling the previous build. ### Why are the changes needed? In most case, the last commit is meaningful. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? Due to the nature of the change, testing of this change is difficult. > Note: This event will only trigger a workflow run if the workflow file is on the default branch. https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-teamlatest/actions/reference/events-that-trigger-workflows#workflow_run However, you can see on my fork that this action is triggered. https://github.com/mik-laj/spark/actions?query=workflow%3A%22Cancelling+Duplicates%22 I also asked the author of this action to review this change - potiuk (PMC of Apache Airflow) and I have a positive review. Closes #31104 from mik-laj/patch-1. Lead-authored-by: Kamil Breguła <kamil.bregula@polidea.com> Co-authored-by: Kamil Breguła <mik-laj@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
sijie
pushed a commit
to apache/pulsar
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 11, 2021
Master Issue: #9154 ### Motivation This PR aims to reduce the GitHub Action usage by cancelling the previous build. ### Modifications Similar to: apache/spark#31098 apache/calcite#2318 (solution suggestted by @vlsi - #9154 (comment))
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR aims to reduce the GitHub Action usage by cancelling the previous build.
Why are the changes needed?
In most case, the last commit is meaningful.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?