gh-114788: Do not run JIT workflow on unrelated changes

[sobolevn]

First change is about concurrency:. We simply cancel previous runs not to waste resources.

Second, docs say that paths should be like this:

Plus, I also included **/*jit*.* to match any files with jit prefix or suffix in its name.

First run: changed jit.yml

JIT workflow is there ✅

Second run: added a PR to this branch in my fork with unrelated changes.

No JIT workflow ✅

• Issue: JIT workflow is executed on unrelated changes in my local fork #114788

[hugovk]

Second, docs say that paths should be like this:

Plus, I also included **/*jit*.* to match any files with jit prefix or suffix in its name.

Ref: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#filter-pattern-cheat-sheet

They also say:

• *: Matches zero or more characters, but does not match the / character. For example, Octo* matches Octocat.
• **: Matches zero or more of any character.

I wonder why paths: '**jit**' didn't work?

Does it work like this?

    paths:
      - '**jit**'

[hugovk]

Does it work like this?

    paths:
      - '**jit**'

I think it might, PyCharm warns that an array is needed:

[sobolevn]

Let's try it! Since this way is much easier.

[sobolevn]

After new changes:

• ✅ Should not trigger JIT: Should not trigger JIT sobolevn/cpython#12
• ✅ Should trigger JIT: Should trigger JIT sobolevn/cpython#13

[hugovk]

Thanks!

[Fidget-Spinner]

Wait a minute, changing bytecode also means the JIT stencils generated will change. So I think we should also detect for changes in Python/bytecodes.c.

[bedevere-app]

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

[brandtbucher]

Just so I understand, the concurrency thing is just to cancel runs that may still be in-progress for earlier commits on the same branch?

[sobolevn]

Yes :)