Skip to content

Conversation

@richm
Copy link
Contributor

@richm richm commented Feb 3, 2026

When we submit a PR for a CI update or docs, we do not want to start CI checking
for ansible-lint, qemu, etc. When we are doing CI updates to 30 or more
roles, this fires off a lot of unnecessary tests, which sometimes causes the
linux-system-roles org in github to be throttled.

When submitting a PR that can skip ci, use "[citest_skip]" in the PR title.

@richm richm requested a review from spetrosi as a code owner February 3, 2026 23:13
@richm richm self-assigned this Feb 3, 2026
@sourcery-ai
Copy link

sourcery-ai bot commented Feb 3, 2026

Reviewer's guide (collapsed on small PRs)

Reviewer's Guide

Configures most GitHub Actions CI jobs to be skipped when a pull request title contains the marker "[citest_skip]" to avoid running heavy checks on CI/docs-only changes.

File-Level Changes

Change Details Files
Conditionally disable various GitHub Actions jobs based on a PR title marker.
  • Added an if: "!contains(github.event.pull_request.title, '[citest_skip]')" condition to primary jobs across CI workflows so they do not run when the PR title includes [citest_skip]
  • Applied the conditional to ansible-related, linting, testing, CodeQL, QEMU integration, README conversion, and inclusive-language workflows to standardize skipping behavior for CI-only/documentation changes
.github/workflows/ansible-lint.yml
.github/workflows/ansible-managed-var-comment.yml
.github/workflows/ansible-test.yml
.github/workflows/codeql.yml
.github/workflows/codespell.yml
.github/workflows/markdownlint.yml
.github/workflows/python-unit-test.yml
.github/workflows/qemu-kvm-integration-tests.yml
.github/workflows/test_converting_readme.yml
.github/workflows/woke.yml

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

  • Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
  • Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
  • Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
    issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
    review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
  • Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
    request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
    @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
  • Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
    the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
    want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
    (re-)generate the summary at any time.
  • Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
    request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
  • Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
    pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
    addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
  • Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
    request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
    want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
    @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

  • Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
    summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
  • Change the review language.
  • Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
  • Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

Copy link

@sourcery-ai sourcery-ai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey - I've found 1 issue

Prompt for AI Agents
Please address the comments from this code review:

## Individual Comments

### Comment 1
<location> `.github/workflows/codeql.yml:17` </location>
<code_context>
   contents: read
 jobs:
   ansible_lint:
+    if: "!contains(github.event.pull_request.title, '[citest_skip]')"
     runs-on: ubuntu-latest
     steps:
</code_context>

<issue_to_address>
**issue:** Guard the `contains` check so it doesn't access `github.event.pull_request` on non-PR events.

This workflow also runs on a schedule, where `github.event.pull_request` may be undefined, so `contains(github.event.pull_request.title, ...)` can fail. To keep the skip mechanism and stay safe for non-PR events, you could guard the check, for example:

```yaml
if: github.event_name != 'pull_request' || !contains(github.event.pull_request.title, '[citest_skip]')
```

Consider applying the same pattern to the other new `if` conditions as well.
</issue_to_address>

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.

When we submit a PR for a CI update or docs, we do not want to start CI checking
for ansible-lint, qemu, etc.  When we are doing CI updates to 30 or more
roles, this fires off a lot of unnecessary tests, which sometimes causes the
linux-system-roles org in github to be throttled.

When submitting a PR that can skip ci, use "[citest_skip]" in the PR title.

Signed-off-by: Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com>
When we submit a PR for a CI update or docs, we do not want to start CI checking
for ansible-lint, qemu, etc.  When we are doing CI updates to 30 or more
roles, this fires off a lot of unnecessary tests, which sometimes causes the
linux-system-roles org in github to be throttled.

When submitting a PR that can skip ci, use "[citest_skip]" in the PR title.

Signed-off-by: Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com>
@richm richm merged commit 17548e2 into main Feb 4, 2026
13 checks passed
@richm richm deleted the citest_skip branch February 4, 2026 13:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants