docs(dynamic-ci): build out the Dynamic CI section - #361
Open
EliSchleifer wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
EliSchleifer wants to merge 1 commit into
EliSchleifer wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Seven pages beside the landing page, all gated to the `dynamic-ci` group and nested under the Overview tab's existing shell: - how-it-works — the request and the plan, the signals and how they combine, job identity, the pull-request and merge-queue lanes, learning vs enforced, fail-open and the notice codes, false skips. - use-cases — the situations the product is for, each with what to configure. - in-the-app — the four app surfaces and what each measure counts. - github-actions / buildkite — setup per provider, under a Setup group. - configuration — what happens with nothing set, repository mode, per-job policies, per-lane signal config, paths filters, ignore-signals, force overrides, scoping. - troubleshooting — nothing skipping, the conditional mistakes, required checks against matrix jobs, false skips, the Buildkite debug path. The landing page keeps the overview and hands setup to the provider pages rather than carrying a GitHub Actions walkthrough itself. Written from the shipped implementation rather than the design docs: the action's `action.yaml` and both READMEs in trunk-io/dynamic-ci, the public API's dynamic-ci schemas, the engine's lane config and policy loader, the Prisma models, and the frontend's segment and tile labels. Two places where the documented behaviour and the action's README disagree, and the code is what got written down: the action is referenced as `trunk-io/dynamic-ci@v1` (its real name; the README still says `dynamic-ci-filter`, which only resolves through GitHub's rename redirect), and the merge queue is described as skipping nothing unless a paths filter is configured for that lane, which is what the engine now does since the merge-queue branch short-circuit was retired. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Contributor
|
Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.
|
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
1 participant
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.
Seven pages beside the landing page, all gated to the
dynamic-cigroup and nested under the Overview tab's existing shell:The landing page keeps the overview and hands setup to the provider pages rather than carrying a GitHub Actions walkthrough itself.
Written from the shipped implementation rather than the design docs: the action's
action.yamland both READMEs in trunk-io/dynamic-ci, the public API's dynamic-ci schemas, the engine's lane config and policy loader, the Prisma models, and the frontend's segment and tile labels.Two places where the documented behaviour and the action's README disagree, and the code is what got written down: the action is referenced as
trunk-io/dynamic-ci@v1(its real name; the README still saysdynamic-ci-filter, which only resolves through GitHub's rename redirect), and the merge queue is described as skipping nothing unless a paths filter is configured for that lane, which is what the engine now does since the merge-queue branch short-circuit was retired.