Ignore '/docs' on some GH actions, give docs its own action

[rusackas]

SUMMARY

First time fiddling with GitHub Actions... be kind to me :)

Attempting to skip several checks for file changes within the /docs directory. Also adding a new action that lints/builds the docs, only when files in /docs are changed.

BEFORE/AFTER SCREENSHOTS OR ANIMATED GIF

TEST PLAN

Gonna tweak a few files herein, and see how it responds.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

• Has associated issue:
• Changes UI
• Requires DB Migration.
• Confirm DB Migration upgrade and downgrade tested.
• Introduces new feature or API
• Removes existing feature or API

[craig-rueda]

One comment. Agree that we want TS in docs :). Otherwise LGTM

[nytai]

This change makes it so that PRs with only changes to docs/** can never pass CI since required checks won't run. See #11026. Can we configure this filter to pass instead of remaining in a pending state forever?

[rusackas]

This change makes it so that PRs with only changes to docs/** can never pass CI since required checks won't run. See #11026. Can we configure this filter to pass instead of remaining in a pending state forever?

@nytai @craig-rueda @ktmud
Welp... from the docs, I don't see a way to effectively skip a test AND return a positive exit code/status. I'm open to ideas if anybody has them, but my current inclination is to revert that change, and return to unnecessarily burning time/electricity.

I really want it to work though, since there are surely other checks that could be bypassed in numerous PR scenarios, in order to make things faster and (probably) less flake-prone.

[nytai]

@rusackas The only thing I can think of is to build the file/path checking step into the actual test code. I did something like this for the fossa check a while back, https://github.com/preset-io/incubator-superset/blob/master/.github/workflows/license-check.yml#L36

[mistercrunch]

oh nice I didn't know you could do this! GH actions ftw!

[ktmud]

My original GA implementation actually had some path ignores, but was removed out of abundance of caution.

[nytai]

I think the main issue is that the check cannot be conditionally run and required. We'd have to make all these checks not required and rely on reviewers/mergers to use their best judgement when merging.