Skip to content

ci: Optimize workflows with caching and concurrency - #2380

Closed
AnzalKhan16 wants to merge 1 commit into
utksh1:mainfrom
AnzalKhan16:feature/optimize-ci-workflows
Closed

ci: Optimize workflows with caching and concurrency#2380
AnzalKhan16 wants to merge 1 commit into
utksh1:mainfrom
AnzalKhan16:feature/optimize-ci-workflows

Conversation

@AnzalKhan16

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

This PR optimizes all existing GitHub Actions workflows to significantly reduce CI execution time and minimize unnecessary resource consumption.

The following enhancements have been made across all .yml workflows:

  • Added cache: "pip" to all setup-python@v5 steps to enable dependency caching based on the project's lockfiles (npm caching was already properly configured).
  • Introduced a concurrency block configured to automatically cancel outdated workflow runs when newer commits are pushed to the same branch or pull request.

Related Issues

#2379

Type of Change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

This was tested by verifying the GitHub Actions configuration syntax and ensuring that the concurrency blocks are valid and correctly scope cancellations to ${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.ref }}. Caching utilizes the built-in properties of the official actions/setup-python and actions/setup-node plugins.

Checklist

  • My code follows the code style of this project.
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code.
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation.
  • My changes generate no new warnings.

@utksh1

utksh1 commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Thank you for your interest in contributing to SecuScan.

This PR/issue is being closed for one of the following reasons:

  • Duplicate functionality that already exists in the project
  • Modifies critical workflows without prior maintainer discussion
  • Assumes infrastructure or processes not aligned with the project

We appreciate well-thought-out contributions, but please:

  1. Review existing CI/CD setup before proposing changes
  2. Open an issue for discussion before submitting large PRs
  3. Coordinate with maintainers on infrastructure changes

For the features we'd like to keep (Dependabot, SHA pinning, multi-arch builds, Scorecard), we'll review those PRs individually.

@utksh1 utksh1 closed this Aug 3, 2026
@utksh1 utksh1 added the gssoc:invalid Admin validation: invalid for GSSoC scoring label Aug 4, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

gssoc:invalid Admin validation: invalid for GSSoC scoring

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants