Cancelling rest of job if condition is met. #25280

BlackSwan2019 · 2020-04-20T01:20:53Z

BlackSwan2019
Apr 20, 2020

When a developer opens a PR, we want to run a job only if code within certain files have changed. The issue is that in order to know whether to run the job or not, the job needs to be run first in order to checkout the repo to perform a git diff on it (kind of a chicken and egg)! So, having established that, I thought maybe we can let the job run. There would be a step (after the checkout@v1) that would then determine whether to continue the job execution or not. If not, then cancel rest of job. Is there a “cancel rest of job” command? We’d want it to also not be considered a failed job. Thanks!

Answered by BrightRan

Apr 21, 2020

@blackswan2019 ,

We have no the “cancel rest of job” command.
As a workaround, you can try using the needs and if conditional on the subsequent jobs to meet your requests.
A simple demo:

jobs:
  job01:
    name: Job 01
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    outputs:
      run_rest_jobs: ${{ steps.set_output.outputs.run_jobs }}
    steps:
      - name: Checkout
        uses: actions/checkout@v2
        with:
          fetch-depth: 2
  - name: git diff and set output
    id: set_output
    run: |
      codeChanges="only within certain files"
      if [[$codeChanges == "only within certain files"]]; then
        echo "::set-output name=run_jobs::true"
      else
        echo "::set-output name=run_j…

View full answer

BrightRan · 2020-04-21T02:54:47Z

BrightRan
Apr 21, 2020

@blackswan2019 ,

We have no the “cancel rest of job” command.
As a workaround, you can try using the needs and if conditional on the subsequent jobs to meet your requests.
A simple demo:

jobs:
  job01:
    name: Job 01
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    outputs:
      run_rest_jobs: ${{ steps.set_output.outputs.run_jobs }}
    steps:
      - name: Checkout
        uses: actions/checkout@v2
        with:
          fetch-depth: 2
  - name: git diff and set output
    id: set_output
    run: |
      codeChanges="only within certain files"
      if [[$codeChanges == "only within certain files"]]; then
        echo "::set-output name=run_jobs::true"
      else
        echo "::set-output name=run_jobs::false"
      fi

job02:

name: Job 02

needs: [job01]

if: needs.job01.outputs.run_rest_jobs == 'true'

runs-on: ubuntu-latest

steps:

- name: the rest jobs

run: echo "run the rest jobs"

Description:

1) On job01 , in the " git diff and set output" step suppose the variable " codeChanges" is used to return the result of git diff. If the result confirms that the code changes only within certain files, set the step’s output parameter " run_jobs" to be " true", otherwise set " run_jobs" to be " false". The job’s output parameter " run_rest_jobs" will use the value of " run_jobs".

2) On job02 , use “needs: [job01]” to set only job01 must complete successfully before job02 begins to run, and use the if conditional ( if: needs.job01.outputs.run_rest_jobs == ‘true’ ) to check whether skip job02 or not.

3) Similarly on other subsequent jobs.

Related docs:

jobs.<jobs_id>.outputs

Setting an output parameter

jobs.<job_id>.needs

jobs.<job_id>.if

steps context

needs context

0 replies

BrightRan · 2020-04-27T09:15:31Z

BrightRan
Apr 27, 2020

@blackswan2019 ,

How are things going? Is my above suggestion helpful to you?

If you have any question about this ticket, feel free to tell me.

0 replies

BlackSwan2019 · 2020-04-30T18:00:12Z

BlackSwan2019
Apr 30, 2020
Author

Hi @brightran. I haven’t got around to trying it yet, but it looks like it would work. Will update once implemented! Thanks.

0 replies

BrightRan · 2020-05-01T01:17:33Z

BrightRan
May 1, 2020

@blackswan2019 ,

Okey, any progress, feel free to tell me.

0 replies

blane1988 · 2020-05-16T01:52:27Z

blane1988
May 16, 2020

Hi @brightran , I have implemented the first part (similar to the job1), and the need requirement for job2 (the dependent job), but the if isn’t working. I noticed that the output from your job1 example is “run_jobs” whereas in job2, the if condition uses “run_rest_jobs”. Is there a reason they are different?

Overall, does my if condition look good? Thanks!

if: needs.native-code-diff-check.outputs.run_ios_job == 'true'

EDIT: Okay, I echoed out the needs context in job2, and it looks like the previous job (job1) never even sent the output value. I will investigate why this is!

NEEDS CONTEXT {
  "native-code-diff-check": {
    "result": "success",
    "outputs": {}
  }
}

EDIT 2: Solved it. It was a mismatch between run_jobs and run_ios_job in two lines respectively.

outputs:
      run_rest_jobs: ${{ steps.native-files-check.outputs. **run\_jobs** }}
echo "::set-output name= run_ios_job ::true"

I set both to run_ios_job.

Your solution did the trick. Thanks for the great response and sample code/docs!

0 replies

BrightRan · 2020-05-21T08:22:13Z

BrightRan
May 21, 2020

@blane1988 ,

On job1, run_rest_jobs is a job-level output , run_jobs is a step-level output.

What you should know is, when job2 needs job1, job2 only can access job-level output from job1, and can’t directly access step-level output from job1. Because in the needs context , it only lists the job-level outputs on job1, and no expression syntax allows job2 to directly access the step-level outputs from job1 (such as " needs.job01.steps.set_output.outputs.run_jobs" is not supported).

So, on job2, if you want to get the value of the step-level output ( run_jobs ) from job1, you need to set a job-level output ( run_rest_jobs ), and pass the value of the step-level output to the job-level output. If job2 needs to access multiple step-level outputs on job1, you need to set a job-level output for each step-level output.

In order to easily distinguish between the job-level output and the step-level output, I give them different names. Of course, giving them the same name also is OK.

0 replies

janosh · 2022-02-26T14:16:28Z

janosh
Feb 26, 2022

Is there still no simpler way to abort workflows? Something like

if [ "$condition" -ne "$value" ]; then
    echo 'Aborting workflow...'
    exit 0 # need some way to kill whole workflow, not just step
fi

0 replies

BlackSwan2019 · 2022-02-26T14:41:47Z

BlackSwan2019
Feb 26, 2022
Author

We wanted to abort job as well (and in our case, not consider it a failure), but no, we never found a way. The shell command exit <number> only applied to steps, like you commented. It’d be great if GitHub introduced some shell alias command that, when called, just skips the whole rest of the workflow.

So, instead, we just have every step in the job have an if-condition, that, when met, skips the steps in sequence until whole workflow is effectively skipped. But, yeah… not pretty.

0 replies

bparthas21 · 2023-11-04T01:38:44Z

bparthas21
Nov 4, 2023

This is why we are moving away from coding in GH workflows. They are a pain. Just write everything in your own code and use GH Actions workflows just as a skeleton to call your code.

0 replies

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

GitHub Community

Cancelling rest of job if condition is met. #25280

{{title}}

Replies: 9 comments

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{editor}}'s edit

{{editor}}'s edit

Select a reply

Cancelling rest of job if condition is met. #25280

Replies: 9 comments

BlackSwan2019 Apr 30, 2020 Author

BlackSwan2019 Feb 26, 2022 Author

BlackSwan2019
Apr 30, 2020
Author

BlackSwan2019
Feb 26, 2022
Author