CI 🧹: clean up workflow naming #37792
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 1 Ignored Deployment
|
alafanechere
force-pushed
the
augustin/05-03-ci_clean_up_workflow_naming
branch
3 times, most recently
from
d6ce479 to
224715d
Compare
alafanechere
force-pushed
the
augustin/05-03-ci_clean_up_workflow_naming
branch
from
224715d to
7ced4fa
Compare
alafanechere
changed the title
| @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ | |||
| name: Connector Ops CI - Connectors Weekly Tests | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok. Ill be more attached to this since I added it in the first place 😅
But there was two things I wanted to solve originally
- Define which team owned a workflow
- Mark which of our workflows were "Business Critical" (e.g. Connector Publish) vs "one off creations" (Label Github issues, terminate zombie build instance, etc)
So Im fine changing these but is there a way to still achieve at least #2?
Unfortuantely we cant use folders
But perhaps we could either place the title slug at the end and try to shorten it
1. Connectors Weekly Tests [Ops CI]
1. Connectors Weekly Tests - Critical Ops CI
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@bnchrch What do you think about using a critical_ prefix on the workflow file name?
I don't find it useful to show that a workflow is critical in the check name on PR, we know it's critical when it has a REQUIRED state.
I'd find it useful to use the filename prefix so that we can easily identify without subfolder, the critical workflow we're maintaining while not impacting the CI checks readability.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@alafanechere will this change the sort order of these in GhA? I feel like it's easier to find the one I want when they're grouped together. But not a blocker if you feel that this is preferable.
An attempt at making our workflow and job names simpler and more explicit for clearer CI checks on PRs