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

Have one workflow ignore the state saved by another #1137

Open
rcomer opened this issue Feb 22, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Have one workflow ignore the state saved by another #1137

rcomer opened this issue Feb 22, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels
feature request New feature or request to improve the current logic

Comments

@rcomer
Copy link

rcomer commented Feb 22, 2024

Description:
Given two workflows in the same repo using this action, have one workflow ignore the state saved by another. I think either of these two options would work for us:

  • Make the cache key specific to the workflow
  • Make statefulness optional with a config setting

Justification:
Over in Matplotlib, we are using the action to slowly work through a large backlog of issues. We want to keep notifications fairly minimal so have operations-per-run set low. However, we don't want steps like removing the label after update or closing the issue to wait until we've worked through the whole backlog. So when we updated to v9, we also added a second workflow using the action with days-before-stale=-1 and a much higher operations-per-run (see my PR here matplotlib/matplotlib#27523). The two workflows run on alternate days. Once #1136 is fixed, I believe what will happen is

  • The original workflow processes a few issues and saves the state
  • The second workflow finds that state, processes all the remaining issues and deletes the state
  • The original workflow starts from the beginning

Since only the original workflow is adding the label, we still do not make progress through our backlog! If each workflow has its own state, this would not be a problem. Also if we could tell the second workflow not to look for a state, it would not be a problem.

Are you willing to submit a PR?

Willing, yes, but I do not have skills with typescript....

@rcomer rcomer added feature request New feature or request to improve the current logic needs triage labels Feb 22, 2024
@rcomer rcomer mentioned this issue Feb 22, 2024
5 tasks
@HarithaVattikuti
Copy link
Contributor

Hello @rcomer
Thank you for creating this feature request. We will investigate it and get back to you as soon as we have some feedback.

@echang49
Copy link

echang49 commented Aug 2, 2024

Old issue but PR is created for this issue.

@echang49 echang49 mentioned this issue Aug 2, 2024
2 tasks
@rcomer
Copy link
Author

rcomer commented Aug 2, 2024

Thank you @echang49!

@VOVELEE
Copy link

VOVELEE commented Aug 28, 2024

It will be really great if #1169 is merged. As mentioned in the PR I am hitting the same issue

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature request New feature or request to improve the current logic
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants