Jobs skipped when NEEDS job ran successfully
See original GitHub issueDescribe the bug One or more jobs are skipped in a workflow when run after successfully running a job matching following conditions:
- Job has NEEDS dependency on one or more preceding jobs. (i.e. needs: [job1, job2])
- Job has if condition specifying behavior when NEEDS jobs are skipped. (i.e. if: always() && needs.job1.result == āskippedā)
- Preceding job is skipped (i.e. job1)
To Reproduce Create a workflow as follows:
name: Skipped Job Test
on:
workflow_dispatch:
jobs:
Skipped-Job:
name: skipped job
runs-on: [self-hosted]
if: 1 != 1
steps:
- name: write to console 1
run: Write-Host "I should be skipped"
Needs-Job:
name: needs conditional job
needs: Skipped-Job
if: always() && needs.Skipped-Job.result != 'failed' # this should run eventhough needs the skipped-job
runs-on: [self-hosted]
steps:
- name: write to console 2
run: Write-Host "Needs-Job completed"
Next:
name: Next job
needs: Needs-Job
# if: always() && needs.Needs-Job.result == 'success' # uncommenting this condition causes the job to not be skipped
runs-on: [self-hosted]
steps:
- name: write to console 3
run: Write-Host "I should print whenever Needs-Job succeeds"
Expected behavior Iād expect the job āNextā to run, because the preceding job " Needs-Job" is completed successfully and is the only condition for this job to run (it needs Needs-Job), it is however skipped. uncommenting the 3rd line in that job is a fix, but this feels hacky and shouldnāt be needed.
Runner Version and Platform
Current runner version: ā2.298.2ā
Running on: Windows Server 2022 Standard Version 21H2 OS build 20348.1006
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created a year ago
- Reactions:25
- Comments:14
Top Results From Across the Web
Github action job fire when previous job skipped
It seems like you encounter this issue - Job-level "if" condition not evaluated correctly if job in "needs" property is skipped.
Read more >Jobs that run on_failure are sometimes unexpectedly ...
The reason is that we are skipping the job if it is a DAG job and needs any skipped or ignored job; The...
Read more >SQL Agent skipping job runs? ā SQLServerCentral Forums
This job has run successfully except for the one day it skipped. It ran successfully today at its normal time. We can't find...
Read more >Skipping GitHub Actions jobs while keeping branch protection ...
Since branch protection rules only look at the name of the job, we can have two āMerge OKā jobs - one that runs...
Read more >Succeeding in the Project Management Jungle: How to Manage ...
Finally, a few words on the last entry: Impediments to success (out of your ... with some aspect of their overall job scope...
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
This is really weird behaviour. As noted here this definitely seems to be a bug (why are we all just running into this now? did everyone suddenly decide to use job ifs?).
A job being skipped seems to be treated as failed, so
success()
doesnāt work for follow on jobs. As documented in the discussion, you should instead use! failure()
which works a treat, but you then have to propagate it to all descendant jobs even if they donāt directly depend on the skipped job, which is very confusing.You should fix
success()
to not include skipped jobs, as skipped really should mean āthis wasnāt neededā, not āthis failedā. And needs checks should only occur on the explicitly listed jobs, not ancestors of those jobs.Experienced this as well. Unless explicitly documented, this feels like a bug. Current behavior is unintuitive as well as cumbersome to develop, since one has to push the
if
clause to all descendent jobs just because of one skipped ancestor.