NR-249371: reflect failures in pre-release title

[sigilioso]

This PR edits pre-release titles to reflect the corresponding artifacts states:

State	Title	pre-release
pre-release created	vX.Y.Z (artifacts-pending)	true
pre-release ready	vX.Y.Z	true
pre-release failure	vX.Y.Z (pre-release-failure)	true

This should help us to easily identify failing pre-releases both manually and automatically.

Out of scope:

Since releases are not promoted automatically (yet), the release workflow is not modified. The release title should also reflect failures when promoting from pre-releases to releases automatically.

TODO:

• Move the latest tag when the changes are merged.

[paologallinaharbur]

I am not sure about the approach. How can differentiate a pre-release that succeeded from one that was not executed?
In this case if we had a failure with permissions we would not be able to attach the info.

Would make sense to add more structured info in the description itself?

status: created
status: pre-released
status: released
status: pre-released-failed
status: released-failed

[sigilioso]

We cannot differentiate them, I was considering the failing use-case only. Thanks for pointing it out.

I wanted to keep it simple but maybe it is not possible, it seems we definitely need more than two values. I'll keep working on it.

[sigilioso]

Considering that there is already a flag to say that the release is a pre-releae (and we are using it), and pre-released and released are the expected statuses. Maybe we can simplify the status definition a bit and keep using the title.

Then, we could use:

State	Title	pre-release
created	vX.Y.Z (artifacts-pending)	true
pre-release	vX.Y.Z	true
release	vX.Y.Z	false
pre-release-fail	vX.Y.Z (pre-release-failure)	true
release-fail	vX.Y.Z (release-failure)	false

WDYT?

[paologallinaharbur]

I like it!

[sigilioso]

I've just updated the workflows and the PR description, @paologallinaharbur take a look when you have a while.

[paologallinaharbur]

I would split notify a failure and this to increase the changes to have at lease one executed is something is broken

[paologallinaharbur]

two diffrent jobs I mean, both having ${{ always() && failure() }}

[sigilioso]

Modified here: 3e9a018

[paologallinaharbur]

apart from that NIT, it is good to go 😄

[marcsanmi]

LGTM! 👍
Should we update the scripts added in this PR #59 to reflect these changes?

[sigilioso]

LGTM! 👍 Should we update the scripts added in this PR #59 to reflect these changes?

I've just updated the one listing pre-releases in #61, I didn't want to simplify it because getting the failing job links is also valuable