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
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 5, 2024. It is now read-only.
Assuming this action is used in a workflow_dispatch, where you use the same workflow for different service deployments (could also be different terraform projects in a monorepo), you will end up in another scenario (which I think is not handled right in this script) where the workflow name is the same for all runs but the only way to differentiate project1 from project2 run is by the step name like the following: wait-for-project1 and wait-for-project2. In this case line https://github.com/otto-de/github-actions-wait/blob/main/wait.sh#L50, will be waiting on previous runs even though the step name (hence also the terraform project) is different (because the workflow id is the same). I would assume that in this case you would want to skip that check in line 50 and just let the other checks handle this scenario because they do check for the step name!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Assuming this action is used in a workflow_dispatch, where you use the same workflow for different service deployments (could also be different terraform projects in a monorepo), you will end up in another scenario (which I think is not handled right in this script) where the workflow name is the same for all runs but the only way to differentiate project1 from project2 run is by the step name like the following:
wait-for-project1
andwait-for-project2
. In this case line https://github.com/otto-de/github-actions-wait/blob/main/wait.sh#L50, will be waiting on previous runs even though the step name (hence also the terraform project) is different (because the workflow id is the same). I would assume that in this case you would want to skip that check in line 50 and just let the other checks handle this scenario because they do check for the step name!The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: