> I suggest to make the checks information only; the check report failed step, but the check itself passes always.
I don't think this is a good idea. If some tests fail randomly, then that's an issue with the test and not with the "engine". Just fix the test or, if that's too much work for now, disable it. One simple improvement to the actual stability of the "engine" would be to disable that the "Build & Test" workflow pushes the docker image to the cache. This often fails and is completely unnecessary. On Monday, February 3, 2025 at 11:35:12 PM UTC+1 Kwankyu Lee wrote: > The basic idea is not to fail a CI check if the PR branch is not the cause. > > Currently, > > (1) "Build & Test / test-long" sometimes fails. > (2) It occurs frequently that one of "Build & Test using Conda(Meson) / > Conda" checks fails. > > (1) is unfortunate, but this is our main engine checking the PR branch. We > should live with it, hoping someone to fix it. > > For (2), I suggest to make the checks information only; the check report > failed step, but the check itself passes always. > > It seems that this can be implemented by adding > > - name: Force job success > if: always() > run: exit 0 # Ensure job always passes > > as the last step of the job for the check. > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/2a587b30-f4a2-4a3c-8897-6a2250bff783n%40googlegroups.com.
