fix(quality): key the concurrency group by event, not by ref alone - #540
Merged
Conversation
A `workflow_dispatch` run shared a concurrency group with every push run on the same branch, so a run somebody deliberately ASKED FOR was cancelled by whatever happened to be merged next. Measured 2026-08-21 across the 18 core repos: 69% of `development` push runs (139 of 200) end cancelled, because merges arrive every 8-12 minutes while a run takes 14-23 (#526). A dispatched run carried the same odds. Observed directly today — two dispatched runs on one shillinq commit, one cancelled before it could report. Two things that were being conflated: - superseding a push run with a NEWER PUSH is correct, and is unchanged: once commit N+1 exists, verifying N matters less; - cancelling a DELIBERATE run because unrelated traffic arrived is not supersession, it is losing the answer someone asked for. This matters most for the fleet gate-drift sweep (#523). That sweep exists to prove apps still comply when the GATES change and no code did, and it dispatches per app with `--ref development` because `schedule:` cannot choose a branch. Under the old group it would dispatch, be cancelled by the next merge, and report neither pass nor fail — a routine that produces no verdict is indistinguishable from one that was never run. Scope, stated plainly: this does NOT reduce push-side cancellation. That is a cadence problem and a separate decision (#526). It only stops one lane cancelling the other. Lanes are independent — each run provisions its own ephemeral server and database, so there is nothing shared to contend over.
This was referenced Aug 21, 2026
This was referenced Aug 27, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Implements option 2 from #526.
The problem
A
workflow_dispatchrun shared a concurrency group with every push run on the same branch:So a run somebody deliberately asked for was cancelled by whatever happened to be merged next.
Measured 2026-08-21 across the 18 core repos: 69% of
developmentpush runs (139 of 200) end cancelled, because merges arrive every 8–12 minutes while a run takes 14–23. A dispatched run carried the same odds.Observed directly today: two dispatched runs on one shillinq commit, one cancelled before it could report.
Two things that were being conflated
Why this blocks #523
The fleet gate-drift sweep exists to prove apps still comply when the gates change and no code did. It dispatches per app with
--ref development, becauseschedule:cannot choose a branch — cron runs from the repo's default branch, and 9 of 18 apps default tomain.Under the old group that sweep would dispatch, be cancelled by the next merge, and report neither pass nor fail. A routine that produces no verdict is indistinguishable from one that was never run — which is the failure mode #523 is already in for a different reason (its token).
Scope, stated plainly
This does not reduce push-side cancellation. That is a cadence problem and a separate decision (#526, where throttling the release loop is option 1 and my recommendation).
It only stops one lane cancelling the other. Lanes are independent: each run provisions its own ephemeral server and database, so there is nothing shared to contend over.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code