[judithroth]

https://community.openproject.org/wp/BNE-178

Ticket

https://community.openproject.org/wp/BNE-178

What are you trying to accomplish?

Keep CI usage low by not triggering unnecessary workflows

AI involvement

Collaborative – AI generated a substantial part of the code; I reviewed and understand every line.

Merge checklist

• Added/updated tests
• Added/updated documentation in Lookbook (patterns, previews, etc)
• Tested major browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, ...)

[github-actions]

Caution

The provided work package version does not match the core version

Details:

• Work package URL: https://community.openproject.org/wp/BNE-178
• Work package version: not set
• Core version: 18.0.0

Please make sure that:

• The work package version OR your pull request target branch is correct

[Copilot]

🟢 Approval recommended

The narrowly scoped path filters preserve eligible core triggers, and no blocking issues were identified.

No open issues 🎉

What changed in this PR

Reduces OpenProject CI usage by skipping six core workflows when changes affect only extensions/blocknote-extensions.

Changes:

• Adds the extension directory to existing push and pull-request ignore filters.
• Excludes extension files from core ESLint triggers while preserving triggers for eligible core changes.

File	Description
.github/​workflows/​test-core.yml	Skips core tests for extension-only changes.
.github/​workflows/​rubocop-core.yml	Skips core Ruby linting for extension-only changes.
.github/​workflows/​i18n-tasks.yml	Skips translation checks for extension-only changes.
.github/​workflows/​eslint-core.yml	Excludes extension files from core ESLint triggers.
.github/​workflows/​downstream-ci.yml	Skips downstream CI for extension-only changes.
.github/​workflows/​danger.yml	Skips Danger checks for extension-only changes.

_{Review effort: Balanced}

[myabc]

@judithroth shouldn't this apply to all extensions/ directories?

[judithroth]

Good catch. Let's leave it per folder in extensions - we don't know what kind of extension we're adding next 🙂

[myabc]

I think extensions is a safe bet, since Ruby code is likely to remain in the monolith. That said, this isn't a blocker for me.

[myabc]

I think it might make sense to switch to explicitly including paths rather than excludes for all tasks, but that is a bigger overhaul of CI workflows and would need input from @oliverguenther and team.

This is a nice improvem3ent in the meantime.