You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
add missing documentation of use cases for workflowrun states #34987
@tomsit-ionos Thank you for raising this issue! I'll get this triaged for review ✨ Our team will provide feedback regarding the best next steps for this issue - thanks for your patience! 💛
@tomsit-ionos Thank you for your patience while our SME team reviewed! Our SME team agrees it would be valuable to have documentation covering these statuses and conclusions.
In terms of ideal location for this new content, we would prefer creating a new reference type of article to Managing workflow runs that defines these, and then link to that article from the API docs.
I've added the help wanted label so that you, or anyone else with knowledge of this area, may work on adding this new content 💛
Yes this seems to be still open - at least looking at the API that I referenced in the description , still doesn't have an easily accessible link or description to the meaning of the states and their transitions
I apologise for the late conclusion here. In fact, this page has existed since early last year: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/reference/status-checks. That to say, you raising an issue here in October of 2024 was entirely valid, and I regret that you weren't informed sooner.
I do see the potential value in adding a link to the REST API docs that you referenced; however, we wouldn't be able to accept a contribution to do that in this repo. I will, instead, pass that feedback on to the relevant team, but since I can't guarantee a timeframe for a response from them and the main part of this issue's problem is resolved, I'm going to go ahead and close this out.
Apologies again for the delay, and thank you very much for your contribution and interest in the GitHub docs 🙇
Activity
tomsit-ionos commentedon Oct 18, 2024
btw: i just found this case:
"conclusion": "startup_failure"nguyenalex836 commentedon Oct 18, 2024
@tomsit-ionos Thank you for raising this issue! I'll get this triaged for review ✨ Our team will provide feedback regarding the best next steps for this issue - thanks for your patience! 💛
github-actions commentedon Oct 18, 2024
Thanks for opening an issue! We've triaged this issue for technical review by a subject matter expert 👀
tomsit-ionos commentedon Oct 18, 2024
also it is not quite obvious why the workflow can transition like so:
queued -> in_progress -> queued -> completedxxx2585 commentedon Nov 11, 2024
nguyenalex836 commentedon Dec 4, 2024
@tomsit-ionos Thank you for your patience while our SME team reviewed! Our SME team agrees it would be valuable to have documentation covering these statuses and conclusions.
In terms of ideal location for this new content, we would prefer creating a new reference type of article to Managing workflow runs that defines these, and then link to that article from the API docs.
I've added the
help wantedlabel so that you, or anyone else with knowledge of this area, may work on adding this new content 💛3 remaining items
luismanac commentedon May 29, 2025
want to work on it
55-x commentedon Jun 3, 2025
Is this still being worked on?
cceneag commentedon Jun 3, 2025
ayushmank commentedon Nov 21, 2025
hi @tomsit-ionos is this issue still opens
please let me know
i would like to contribute in this
tomsit-ionos commentedon Nov 21, 2025
Yes this seems to be still open - at least looking at the API that I referenced in the description , still doesn't have an easily accessible link or description to the meaning of the states and their transitions
ayushmank commentedon Nov 21, 2025
Hi @tomsit-ionos please have a look to this pr [#41379 ] when you have free time
thanks !!
subatoi commentedon Aug 17, 2026
Hi @tomsit-ionos—
I apologise for the late conclusion here. In fact, this page has existed since early last year: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/reference/status-checks. That to say, you raising an issue here in October of 2024 was entirely valid, and I regret that you weren't informed sooner.
I do see the potential value in adding a link to the REST API docs that you referenced; however, we wouldn't be able to accept a contribution to do that in this repo. I will, instead, pass that feedback on to the relevant team, but since I can't guarantee a timeframe for a response from them and the main part of this issue's problem is resolved, I'm going to go ahead and close this out.
Apologies again for the delay, and thank you very much for your contribution and interest in the GitHub docs 🙇