ci: pass run condition to reusable workflow

[mitsudome-r]

Description

This PR resolves the issue raised in #9769 by alternative method.

This PR:

• reverts ci(build-test-tidy): introduce success condition jobs #9769
• creates a new argument run-condition to the reusable build-and-test-diffirential.yaml workflow

For the details, please refer to the comment here.

Related links

• ci(build-test-tidy): introduce success condition jobs #9769

How was this PR tested?

Notes for reviewers

None.

Interface changes

None.

Effects on system behavior

None.

[github-actions]

Thank you for contributing to the Autoware project!

🚧 If your pull request is in progress, switch it to draft mode.

Please ensure:

• You've checked our contribution guidelines.
• Your PR follows our pull request guidelines.
• All required CI checks pass before marking the PR ready for review.

[xmfcx]

Thanks, you need to do the same for the clang tidy one as well.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 28.77%. Comparing base (c8e0040) to head (86186e1).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9771      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   28.77%   28.77%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1457     1457              
  Lines      109219   109228       +9     
  Branches    42567    42571       +4     
==========================================
  Hits        31432    31432              
- Misses      74706    74715       +9     
  Partials     3081     3081              

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
differential	0.00% <ø> (?)		Carriedforward from c360775
differential-cuda	0.00% <ø> (?)
total	28.77% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from c360775

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[xmfcx]

Tests - 01 ❌

🖱️Click here to expand🔛

Normal Package Modification

🟢 Good Change

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12546108605 ✅

🔴 Bad Change

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12546179494 ✅

CUDA Package Modification

🟢 Good Change

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12546412960 ❌
  • This has skipped both the clang-tidy-differential jobs.

I'll fix this and re-run the tests.

• Fixed with: 87e511e

[xmfcx]

Tests - 02 ❌

🖱️Click here to expand🔛

Normal Package Modification

🟢 Good Change

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12546710874 ✅

🔴 Bad Change

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12546870585 ❌
  • This is ok but there ise a caveat: Even though bnt-diff failed, it still ran ct-diff and failed.
    • It should have skipped/failed it without having to run it.
    • Right now it is wasting build machine time to re-attempt even if it's clear it will fail.
• Fixed with: c627eb0

CUDA Package Modification

🟢 Good Change

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12547421355 ✅

🔴 Bad Change

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12547597879 ❌
  • This is ok but there ise a caveat: Even though bnt-diff failed, it still ran ct-diff and failed.
    • It should have skipped/failed it without having to run it.
    • Right now it is wasting build machine time to re-attempt even if it's clear it will fail.
• Fixed with: c627eb0

[xmfcx]

Tests - 03 ❌

🖱️Click here to expand🔛

Normal Package Modification

🟢 Good Change

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12547876847 ✅

🔴 Bad Change

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12547972794 ✅

CUDA Package Modification

🟢 Good Change

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12548054625 ✅

🔴 Bad Change

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12548313231 ✅

No Package Modification

Without Label 🔴

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12548427784 ❌
  • It skipped build-and-test-differential sub-jobs. Needs to be fixed.
  • Fixed in: 49394be

[xmfcx]

Tests - 04 ✅

🖱️Click here to expand🔛

No Package Modification

With Label 🟢

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12548956772 ✅

Without Label 🔴

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12548937619 ✅

Normal Package Modification

🟢 Good Change

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12549056882 ✅

🔴 Bad Change

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12549162783 ✅

CUDA Package Modification

🟢 Good Change

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12549203878 ✅

🔴 Bad Change

• https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/actions/runs/12549371460 ✅

[xmfcx]

@mitsudome-r Could you also confirm the changes?

[mitsudome-r]

@xmfcx Thanks, the modification looks fine.

FYI, in Test 3, you said

Without Label 🔴
It skipped build-and-test-differential sub-jobs. Needs to be fixed.
Fixed in: 49394be
you need additional fix

but I don't think it's a necessary change.
If we skip the sub-jubs, the status check in a PR will tell a developer that it is expecting for the results from the build-and-test-differential jobs, which is fine. The current change will report that the build-and-test-differential & build-and-test-differential have succeeded (skipped).
Either should be okay as long as we set the require-label as status checks.

[xmfcx]

but I don't think it's a necessary change.
If we skip the sub-jubs, the status check in a PR will tell a developer that it is expecting for the results from the build-and-test-differential jobs, which is fine.

We should not send the users mixed signals about skipping and failing. If I didn't make this change, It would show the build and test differential job as expected but it would never come up. Maybe the user would wait for a runner ro pick it up. It's not clear why it is yellow like this:

And would be the only occasion where we would have a job skipped but at the same time we would show it as yellow "expected".

With the fix, it show as skipped because it will be skipped.

The current change will report that the build-and-test-differential & build-and-test-differential have succeeded (skipped).

The CI treats skipping as success, yes. But this doesn't mean that the job was already skipped.
Showing it as yellow "expected" is more confusing. And require-label job will be the only failing check in this case, making it easier to spot for developers.

[mitsudome-r]

okay, let's keep it consistent.