Skip to content

PDAF-updates#101

Merged
jjokella merged 3 commits intomasterfrom
dev-pdaf-update
Oct 29, 2025
Merged

PDAF-updates#101
jjokella merged 3 commits intomasterfrom
dev-pdaf-update

Conversation

@jjokella jjokella requested a review from kvrigor October 29, 2025 08:10
@jjokella
Copy link
Contributor Author

jjokella commented Oct 29, 2025

@kvrigor There is an error in the eCLM-PDAF build, because the CI-compilation is stricter than the Intel-compilation I check PDAF updates with (which is a good additional check).

My idea is now to have earlier warnings of such errors, by running the CI on branches dev-pdaf-* (which I use for updating PDAF without making them a PR in TSMP2).

I added this:

on:
push:
branches: [ master, dev-pdaf-* ]
pull_request:
branches: [ master, stages-2025-pdaf ]

However, I only need eCLM-PDAF to be run. Is there a simple way to restrict CI on dev-pdaf branches to just eCLM-PDAF? The other builds would be a waste of resources, I guess.

@jjokella jjokella mentioned this pull request Oct 29, 2025
@kvrigor
Copy link
Member

kvrigor commented Oct 29, 2025

However, I only need eCLM-PDAF to be run. Is there a simple way to restrict CI on dev-pdaf branches to just eCLM-PDAF? The other builds would be a waste of resources, I guess.

I think the cleanest way is to remove the eCLM-PDAF steps in CI.yml and move them to a new job file called .github/workflows/PDAF.yml. Then you can freely apply build triggers specific to your branches without affecting the main CI job. As for eCLM-ParFlow-PDAF, we can keep it in CI.yml for simplicity to avoid duplicating ParFlow dependency installation across jobs.

@jjokella
Copy link
Contributor Author

To avoid duplication, I would for now then stick with running the full CI on the dev-pdaf-* branches!

@jjokella jjokella merged commit d91617f into master Oct 29, 2025
8 checks passed
@jjokella jjokella deleted the dev-pdaf-update branch October 29, 2025 09:29
@jjokella jjokella mentioned this pull request Nov 13, 2025
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