Use the build job name instead of success in ci-checks for rustc_codegen_gcc

[antoyo]

The job name should be build and not success.

[antoyo]

I wonder if this is the correct solution, since we have multiple workflow files.
Any idea?

[Kobzol]

Do you want all the workflows to succeed for a PR to be merged? In general, for a branch protection, you need to specify job names that have to succeed. Usually, if there are multiple jobs in a workflow, we create a single "success" job that merges their results together.

If there are multiple workflows, there would have to be multiple success jobs per workflow (or maybe it's enough to name them all in the same way? not sure how that works).

I think that build on its own will not work here, because the build job actually uses a CI matrix, so it will actually generate a bunch of jobs, which will all be named differently. In that case it's best to create a success job to make the branch protection easier.

Here is a PR that adds a success job to the (main?) ci.yml workflow.

[tgross35]

If you expect them to all be successful, I think you can add another .github/workflow job that depends on all the other.yaml files https://stackoverflow.com/a/64733705/5380651.

[Kobzol]

I don't think that we use that anywhere in rust-lang for marking CI success, but we could test drive it here 😆 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-bindgen/blob/59a43e10b758bd86275aefceae29e874157087d8/.github/workflows/publish.yml#L4 is an example where it is used to publish crates to crates.io.

[tgross35]

How nice would it be if GH just had an easy way to do "required: all jobs" 🙃

[antoyo]

If you expect them to all be successful, I think you can add another .github/workflow job that depends on all the other.yaml files https://stackoverflow.com/a/64733705/5380651.

From what I can see in the comments, this will only be ran on the default branch, so I believe this would not work for what we want to do.
Am I missing something?

[tgross35]

Oh, I don't know then. Maybe it works if branches: [main] is omitted? I haven't actually used this either.

If not, would it be feasible to combine the workflows that need to run for a PR to a single file?

[tgross35]

I guess there isn't much harm in just trying the PR here either but being ready to revert if GH doesn't like it. When multiple jobs have the same name the gh CLI tool also needs the job file name to disambiguate, but branch protection won't care that there are multiple jobs named build?