You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Just wanted to write down some thoughts about the label based triggering of deployments.
I am still finding myself in a lot of pretty messy situations for two reasons:
Mixing the running of recipes with code changes. I often want to just rerun a recipe and currently have to open a dummy PR or mix the running of recipes into other PRs. This gets messy over time and is not very easy to grok after a while (or other contributors).
I have to add/remove labels one by one. I often find myself in situations where I want to run 2+ recipes. But each setting of a label 'fires' off a github action. This means if I add run:a, run:b as labels in one go I will fire of two github workflows (one deploying recipe a, the other deploying recipe a and b ). This is very hard to keep track of after a while or with many recipes. The only solution I have found so far is to add run:a, then remove run:a, then add run:b and remove run:b to fire of two jobs (the first one runs a, the second one runs b).
I am not quite sure how to improve this behavior but wanted to note this down somewhere for future discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Just wanted to write down some thoughts about the label based triggering of deployments.
I am still finding myself in a lot of pretty messy situations for two reasons:
run:a
,run:b
as labels in one go I will fire of two github workflows (one deploying recipe a, the other deploying recipe a and b ). This is very hard to keep track of after a while or with many recipes. The only solution I have found so far is to addrun:a
, then removerun:a
, then addrun:b
and removerun:b
to fire of two jobs (the first one runs a, the second one runs b).I am not quite sure how to improve this behavior but wanted to note this down somewhere for future discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: