Rename GHA workflows for having more intuitive navigation

[piponazo]

GHA are great, and I am very pleased to see that all our CI pipelines are now only running in one single place.

However, I found a bit confusing finding the jobs I was looking for in the "Actions" page:

I am opening this PR to propose a new naming schema for all the workflows, so that it makes easier to find the different workflows. What do you think? Do you have other ideas to make the names even more intuitive?

In the past I noticed that once you make changes in the workflow names, the old names remain for some time. But I think it is possible to manually discard the old data.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2049 (d188898) into main (8135665) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2049   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   61.43%   61.43%           
=======================================
  Files          96       96           
  Lines       19203    19203           
  Branches     9847     9847           
=======================================
  Hits        11797    11797           
  Misses       5087     5087           
  Partials     2319     2319           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 8135665...d188898. Read the comment docs.

[hassec]

Great idea!
i'm very much in favor of this cleanup 👍

[kmilos]

Good idea, it did also cross my mind when I was working on this (as well as cleaning up some matrix names, but that's a minor/cosmetic issue). The only thing sticking out for me is "PUSH" - "PR" is an acronym and is fine (without the "s", the action is triggered by a single event), but I'd leave this as a regular word in lowercase (or even use "pull request" or just "pull").

I think it is possible to manually discard the old data

Yes, unfortunately AFAICT it means deleting one job by one, which will take quite some time :/

[hassec]

Yes, unfortunately AFAICT it means deleting one job by one, which will take quite some time :/

We should check if there is a way to do it via the API, so maybe we can cleanup with a simple script

[kmilos]

We should check if there is a way to do it via the API, so maybe we can cleanup with a simple script

I Googled this when I was deleting some old ones already, don't think there is, but maybe you'll be more lucky ;)

@piponazo Can we also fix the on_PR_linux_special_builds.yml misspelling while we're at it?

[hassec]

quick google lead me to https://qmacro.org/autodidactics/2021/03/26/mass-deletion-of-github-actions-workflow-runs/ which sounds promising

[kmilos]

Cool. I think I restricted my search to the web interface - found there was already a feature request for github to do this, but they basically said not interested for now (I guess because it is possible via the API)...

[clanmills]

This looks really good. Simplicity and consistency are engineering virtues.

[piponazo]

Ups, I was going to take care about some of the comments but Robin merged this quicker than expected ⚡ 😄 . I'll open another branch for taking care of the suggestions.

[clanmills]

@piponazo I was too enthusiastic. Apologies.

[clanmills]

@piponazo Apologies again. When @hassec had approved it, I thought it was ready. GitHub has a "Work in progress" flag for PRs. I think it's called "Draft". It's kind of inconvenient to set that. It should be the default when you create a PR with a check box if you don't want it to be draft. Instead you have to submit the PR, then update it on the web-site. I think there's a button "Convert to Draft" on the right-hand side.