Skip to content

[ci] Cancel CI jobs when new commits are added to a PR#7269

Merged
sbc100 merged 1 commit intomainfrom
github_concurreny
Feb 4, 2025
Merged

[ci] Cancel CI jobs when new commits are added to a PR#7269
sbc100 merged 1 commit intomainfrom
github_concurreny

Conversation

@sbc100
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@sbc100 sbc100 commented Feb 3, 2025

This should really be the default shouldn't it?

@sbc100 sbc100 requested review from kripken and tlively February 3, 2025 20:43
@sbc100 sbc100 changed the title GitHub concurreny [ci] Cancel CI jobs when new commits are added to a PR Feb 3, 2025
This should really be the default shouldn't it?
@sbc100 sbc100 force-pushed the github_concurreny branch from a62ede6 to ce5150b Compare February 3, 2025 20:44
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@kripken kripken left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm, though I thought this is the current behavior? It always seemed that way when I looked at it. But maybe I didn't look carefully enough.

@sbc100
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

sbc100 commented Feb 3, 2025

lgtm, though I thought this is the current behavior? It always seemed that way when I looked at it. But maybe I didn't look carefully enough.

I know its true for circle ci and emscripten.. have you noticed it being true here too?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@tlively tlively left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, this is already the current behavior. Maybe making it explicit will cause the jobs to be canceled faster, but that would be surprising.

@sbc100
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

sbc100 commented Feb 3, 2025

If its already the default then maybe we shouldn't land this. I couldn't fine that default documented anywhere..

@mcbarton
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

mcbarton commented Feb 4, 2025

Yes, this is already the current behavior. Maybe making it explicit will cause the jobs to be canceled faster, but that would be surprising.

This is not the default behaviour for Github. See the documentation here https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/actions/writing-workflows/choosing-what-your-workflow-does/control-the-concurrency-of-workflows-and-jobs#example-using-concurrency-and-the-default-behavior

@sbc100
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

sbc100 commented Feb 4, 2025

Yes, this is already the current behavior. Maybe making it explicit will cause the jobs to be canceled faster, but that would be surprising.

Based on this experiment I don't see this as being the current behaviour: #7273. Here I pushed a new change to an existing PR and the jobs from the first commit continued to run.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants