Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

workflows: use more accurate skipping flag #331196

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

Aleksanaa
Copy link
Member

Description of changes

Because nixf-tidy is not working as expected sometimes. See #331085

Things done

  • Built on platform(s)
    • x86_64-linux
    • aarch64-linux
    • x86_64-darwin
    • aarch64-darwin
  • For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
    • sandbox = relaxed
    • sandbox = true
  • Tested, as applicable:
  • Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
  • Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 Release notes)
    • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
    • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
    • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

@Aleksanaa Aleksanaa requested review from infinisil, Mic92, zowoq and a team as code owners July 31, 2024 04:19
@Aleksanaa Aleksanaa changed the title workflows/check-nix-format.yml: use more accurate skipping flag workflows: use more accurate skipping flag Jul 31, 2024
@ofborg ofborg bot added 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Darwin 10.rebuild-linux: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Linux labels Jul 31, 2024
Copy link
Member

@infinisil infinisil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Tbh I don't really think we need this, because the checks aren't required to succeed for merging.

And from what I know, the [skip treewide] thing is really only necessary when running that workflow for a PR that touches a lot of files causes bad things to happen: #211845 (comment)

@Aleksanaa Aleksanaa closed this Aug 20, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
6.topic: policy discussion 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Darwin 10.rebuild-linux: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Linux
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants