feat(ci): support opt-in workflow for pull-requests

[kwannoel]

I hereby agree to the terms of the RisingWave Labs, Inc. Contributor License Agreement.

What's changed and what's your intention?

Closes #12733

Allows us to run PR workflow steps selectively.

For instance with this:

(Add ci/skip-ci instead of ci/enable-opt-in-mode, that option has been renamed.)

We have the following steps run:

Even if PR is in draft:

Checklist

• I have written necessary rustdoc comments
• I have added necessary unit tests and integration tests
• I have added fuzzing tests or opened an issue to track them. (Optional, recommended for new SQL features Sqlsmith: Sql feature generation #7934).
• My PR contains breaking changes. (If it deprecates some features, please create a tracking issue to remove them in the future).
• All checks passed in ./risedev check (or alias, ./risedev c)
• My PR changes performance-critical code. (Please run macro/micro-benchmarks and show the results.)

• My PR contains critical fixes that are necessary to be merged into the latest release. (Please check out the details)

Documentation

• My PR needs documentation updates. (Please use the Release note section below to summarize the impact on users)

Release note

If this PR includes changes that directly affect users or other significant modifications relevant to the community, kindly draft a release note to provide a concise summary of these changes. Please prioritize highlighting the impact these changes will have on users.

[kwannoel]

Updated pipeline config as well. Should be able to trigger pr workflow (but only opt-in-mode) when PR is in draft.

[xxchan]

Maybe sth like "skip-ci"? That might sound more straightforward than "opt-in-mode". 😄

The idea generally LGTM. (I also sometimes want to skip ci. lol) A little problem is the ci jobs form a DAG, so it might be problematic to turn on/off all steps via labels?

[kwannoel]

A little problem is the ci jobs form a DAG, so it might be problematic to turn on/off all steps via labels?

Primary usecase is to enable a few tests.
So I think it's fine to let the user resolve the DAG themselves.
Usually the DAG is at most 1-2 length-wise.

[kwannoel]

skip-ci

+1, I will change it to ci/skip-ci

[kwannoel]

Btw I think this feature should only be allowed for draft PRs to avoid accidentally disabling some tests.

[huangjw806]

Now, drft pr will automatically skip ci. What this PR wants to do is to only run the draft pr of the label. You are right, you need to figure out the dependencies of CI job in advance.

[kwannoel]

Btw I think this feature should only be allowed for draft PRs to avoid accidentally disabling some tests.

and

+1, I will change it to ci/skip-ci

Done in ebe56d3

[huangjw806]

LGTM!

[kwannoel]

Still able to trigger.

Now testing enable ci/skip-ci only in draft PRs step.

[kwannoel]

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #12870 (d7c4527) into main (ea27579) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #12870   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   69.26%   69.26%           
=======================================
  Files        1489     1489           
  Lines      245772   245772           
=======================================
+ Hits       170236   170238    +2     
+ Misses      75536    75534    -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
rust	69.26% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

see 14 files with indirect coverage changes

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more