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
From what I have observed in GitHub Actions of Pecan repository, the Docker workflow takes the most amount of resources in terms of API usage and run time.
Proposed Solution
I'm not 100% sure but i think that we should run the docker workflow only if the CI workflow is completed and successful
This can save us the github action resources and there by reducing the API limit error to a great extent.
I am not sure if there is any downside to this feature or how much negative impact this can have on our current system, so want some suggestions from the community on this proposal.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
allgandalf
changed the title
Should the Docker workflow run after the CI tests are successful
Should the Docker workflow run only when the CI tests are successful
Jul 20, 2023
There is a trade-off between time and optimization, I am still insisting to go with optimization as the tests are failing more frequently due to the API rate limit, but again one of the biggest concern is the additional time required :)
Description
From what I have observed in GitHub Actions of Pecan repository, the
Docker
workflow takes the most amount of resources in terms of API usage and run time.Proposed Solution
I'm not 100% sure but i think that we should run the
docker
workflow only if theCI
workflow is completed and successfulThis can save us the github action resources and there by reducing the API limit error to a great extent.
Documentation of this featrure can be found here
The basic changes in the docker workflow file would be somewhat like the example below:
I am not sure if there is any downside to this feature or how much negative impact this can have on our current system, so want some suggestions from the community on this proposal.
@robkooper @infotroph @mdietze
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: