GitHub Community
Create From Template Initial Workflow Fails with paths-ignore #199933
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 3 comments 7 replies
-
|
💬 Your Product Feedback Has Been Submitted 🎉 Thank you for taking the time to share your insights with us! Your feedback is invaluable as we build a better GitHub experience for all our users. Here's what you can expect moving forward ⏩
Where to look to see what's shipping 👀
What you can do in the meantime 💻
As a member of the GitHub community, your participation is essential. While we can't promise that every suggestion will be implemented, we want to emphasize that your feedback is instrumental in guiding our decisions and priorities. Thank you once again for your contribution to making GitHub even better! We're grateful for your ongoing support and collaboration in shaping the future of our platform. ⭐ |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
This comment was marked as low quality.
This comment was marked as low quality.
-
|
Since the initial creation of template-test-01 last night (link is the initial state of ci.yaml), GitHub has introduced additional breaking regressions. Now, creating an identical repo called template-test-05 produces the same workflow failure I identified above on initial repo create (not creating from a template, just creating a repo manually). Last night, this behavior was only happening in the situation I described when creating from a template (you can see the timing and status of the initial commit workflow), however now the behavior happens when creating a new repo manually. In regards to trying nested paths with In regards to trying We are witnessing BREAKING regressions actively taking place. GitHub, PLEASE address this issue immediately. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@andrewhaller Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We did introduce some new behavior here but I will turn it off for |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@thyeggman thank you for taking the time to give this some attention. Can you please disable the "new behavior" for the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I disabled the new behavior for |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thank you again for your quick reply, and disabling the behavior in my orgs. It would be nice if these sorts of things were released with feature flags that required explicit enabling in the Feature Previews area, while the wrinkles get ironed out. My current problem is solved though, so thank you again. 🙏 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@andrewhaller I just pushed a fix and tested it out myself, this scenario looks to be resolved now 😄 I've turned the new behavior back on for |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I just tested several variations in my sandbox org (manual create with a You can turn the new behavior back on in my main org ( Thank you for fixing this. 🎉 🎆 (Edit: @thyeggman please let me know when the behavior is turned back on, and I will close the discussion as resolved) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
I disabled the new behavior for
stairwaytowonderlandas well. There's no docs yet, but effectively we're trying to improve the performance when generating filters for filtered workflows, which has caused problems for repos with exceptionally large histories. We fail open when we can't generate a diff to ensure that workflows run, but this leads to running more than intended sometimes - see the note in our existing docs in this section. We will be updating the docs when we have all the wrinkles like this ironed out though 👍