This is a clean revert of the commits that led to grouping all jobs related to issue labeling into one workflow. The assumption that it would be more efficient was incorrect because it assumed the conditions for running each job would be evaluated statically Forgejo side. In reality the conditions are evaluated by the runner and multiplies the number of runs required instead of decreasing them. In turn, this clutters the status line of each pull request with numerous skipped runs. Finally it is more complex to maintain multiple jobs into a single workflow because the conditions for it to run have to be duplicated.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/6178
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
Co-committed-by: Earl Warren <contact@earl-warren.org>
When the CI vars.ROLE is forgejo-coding, it is assumed to be the
repository where collaborative coding happens,
i.e. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo
When the CI vars.ROLE is forgejo-testing, it is assumed that only codebase
testing is to be run and no other tests such as release build
integration, label constraints, backporting etc.
* no-auto-squash: true so it DTRT for merged & squashed PRs
* target-branch-pattern: replaces the ad-hoc logic to determine the
target branch name
It also now supports backporting to multiple branches. This is not
going to be immediately useful but will greatly help in three months
when there are two releases receiving backports.
The intention was good initially but the expression was wrong for two
reasons:
* When a pull_request event is received for a labeled action, the
match should be github.event.action == 'label_updated' and not
'labeled'
* The event does not have a github.event.label field and
contains(github.event.label.name, 'backport/v') will always be
false.
Since the expression is only evaluated in the context of a merged pull
request, either because it was just closed or because it was labeled
after the fact, the only verification that is needed is to assert that
there is at least one `backport/v*` label.
strategy: ort
The strategy is changed from "recursive" to "ort", which is the
default for git >= 2.43.2 and claims to reduce the likelyhood of
conflicts according to man git-merge:
> This has been reported to result in fewer merge conflicts without
> causing mismerges...
strategy-option: find-renames
The default option are the same for both strategies and "theirs" will:
> This option forces conflicting hunks to be auto-resolved
> cleanly by favoring their version.
"their" being whatever is not in the commits being cherry-picked.
In the context of Forgejo backports, this is not what is desired:
whenever a conflict happens it needs to be manually resolved and
prefering whatever is in the stable branch will not lead to a sane
backport.
It is changed back to "find-renames" which is documented to be the
default:
> Turn on rename detection, optionally setting the similarity
> threshold. This is the default.
Fixes: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/2886
