Repository navigation
ci: split the ci workflow so each side only runs on its own changes - #34
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The combined `ci` workflow ran both jobs on every PR, so a client-only change paid for a ~5 minute Rust build and a cargo-only change paid for the full npm suite. Across the 13 dependency PRs just processed that was most of the Actions spend. GitHub has no per-job `paths` filter, so one workflow per side is the only way to get this without pulling in a third-party changed-files action: - ci-server.yml <- server/** , its own workflow file - ci-client.yml <- client/** , its own workflow file Nothing under client/ can affect the server job: server/build.rs only requires client/dist/index.html for *release* builds, and CI builds the dev profile. A change touching both still runs both. security.yml is deliberately left unfiltered -- it audits both ecosystems on a cron, independent of what changed. Safe to do here because main has no branch protection, so there are no required status checks to strand when a workflow correctly does not run. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The combined
ciworkflow ran both jobs on every PR, so a client-only change paid for a ~5 minute Rust build and a cargo-only change paid for the full npm suite. Across the 13 dependency PRs just processed, that was most of the Actions spend.GitHub has no per-job
pathsfilter, so one workflow per side is the only way to get this without pulling in a third-party changed-files action (dorny/paths-filterand a gating job would cost an extra runner start on every run, and a dependency this repo otherwise doesn't have).ci-serverserver/**, or its own workflow fileci-clientclient/**, or its own workflow fileA change touching both sides still runs both — as this PR does, since it edits both workflow files.
Why the server job is safe to skip on client changes
server/build.rsrequiresclient/dist/index.htmlonly for release builds:CI builds the dev profile (
cargo test), so nothing underclient/can affect the server job. The release path is exercised byrelease.yml, which is manual and unchanged.security.ymlis deliberately left unfiltered — it audits both ecosystems on a cron, independent of what changed.One thing to know
This is safe because
mainhas no branch protection. Path-filtered workflows that correctly don't run leave their checks absent rather than passing, which would block merges if they were configured as required status checks. If you add branch protection later, mark these as required only via a job that always runs, or accept that a docs-only PR shows no checks.Also updated: the stale
ci-workflow references independabot.ymlandsecurity.ymlcomments.🤖 Generated with Claude Code