Skip to content

6.3 Branch: Build/Test Tools: Use PR number for concurrency groups instead of head_ref. - #15576

Open
desrosj wants to merge 1 commit into
WordPress:6.3from
desrosj:backport/65249-6.3
Open

desrosj wants to merge 1 commit into
WordPress:6.3from
desrosj:backport/65249-6.3

Conversation

@desrosj

@desrosj desrosj commented Nov 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Backports r65249 to the 6.3 branch.

Switches GitHub Actions concurrency groups from github.head_ref (branch name only) to github.event.pull_request.number, so workflow runs from PRs opened from different forks with identical branch names no longer cancel each other. props-bot.yml uses github.event.pull_request.number || github.event.issue.number to also cover issue_comment events.

All files in this branch that use head_ref in a concurrency group were updated. Some of them (such as check-built-files.yml) do not exist in trunk.

Trac ticket: https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/65845

Use of AI Tools

Claude Code (Claude Opus 5.5) applied the trunk change to each branch with scripted substitutions and opened this PR. Each diff was checked to contain only the expected concurrency group and comment changes.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

@desrosj desrosj changed the title [6.3] Build/Test Tools: Use PR number for concurrency groups instead of head_ref. 6.3 Branch: Build/Test Tools: Use PR number for concurrency groups instead of head_ref. Nov 5, 2026
@desrosj
desrosj marked this pull request as ready for review November 5, 2026 22:38
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Nov 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs.

Core Committers: Use this line as a base for the props when committing in SVN:

Props desrosj.

To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook.


Props Bot commands

You can trigger Props Bot actions by commenting on this PR:

  • @propsbot add <username> to give props to a GitHub user. Requires write access.
  • @propsbot remove <username> to leave a user out of the props. Requires write access.
  • @propsbot refresh to refresh this list. Adding the props-bot label works too.

@desrosj
desrosj requested a review from a team November 6, 2026 00:48
@desrosj desrosj self-assigned this Nov 6, 2026
@desrosj desrosj moved this from Backlog to In review in WordPress Project Build Tooling Nov 6, 2026
…head_ref`.

The current standard across all GitHub Actions workflows is to configure `concurrency` to use the `github.head_ref` value in the `group` name for a given PR. Because `head_ref` only includes the branch name, workflow runs can be inadvertantly cancelled when two PRs are open from different forks with identical branch names.

This switches to using the `github.event.pull_request.number` instead of `github.head_ref` to ensure that runs are properly grouped only with runs from the same pull request. A similar change has been made to `props-bot.yml`, which can be triggered by an `issue_comment` event. In this case, the `github.event.issue.number` will be used. In the context of GitHub, `issues == pull_requests` for the data returned by a number of request types.

Merges [65249] to the 6.3 branch.

Props lancewillett.
See #65845.
@desrosj
desrosj force-pushed the backport/65249-6.3 branch from f96ddb2 to a82f4f4 Compare November 6, 2026 02:42

@lancewillett lancewillett left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Checked against the 6.3 branch at a82f4f4: all 6 workflows whose concurrency group used github.head_ref now use github.event.pull_request.number, matching r65249, with the comment line updated to match. No head_ref is left under .github/ and nothing else changed. CI: 24 passed, 14 skipped, 0 failed.

AI review · claude-opus-5-5

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: In review

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants