ci: add missing timeout-minutes guards to hot-path jobs #122

Merged
admin merged 1 commits from ci/timeout-guards-0pt-20260927 into main 2026-09-27 01:50:05 +00:00
1 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
Claude CodeandClaude Sonnet 5 4c47e151f3 chore(ci): add missing timeout-minutes guards to hot-path jobs
CI (SIAX Cloud) / integration (push) Skipped
masterplan-lock / check (push) Successful in 6s
masterplan-lock / check (pull_request) Successful in 6s
Security Scan (SIAX Cloud) / security (pull_request) Successful in 24s
Security Scan (SIAX Cloud) / security (push) Successful in 49s
CI (SIAX Cloud) / security (push) Successful in 53s
CI (SIAX Cloud) / quality (push) Successful in 1m20s
CI (SIAX Cloud) / security (pull_request) Successful in 20s
CI (SIAX Cloud) / quality (pull_request) Successful in 53s
CI (SIAX Cloud) / integration (pull_request) Successful in 1m0s
Fleet-wide CI-speed pass: none of 0pt's push/pull_request-triggered
workflow jobs capped their own runtime, so a hang (network stall,
runaway process, stuck polling loop) burns a runner slot until Gitea's
own default kicks in. Added job-level timeout-minutes sized to what
each job actually does:

  cd.yml            deploy      20  (bounded ~10min signed-artifact poll + setup)
  ci.yml            quality     30  (typecheck/test/build)
  ci.yml            integration 45  (multi-service: live OpenSearch + ClickHouse)
  ci.yml            security    15  (single trivy fs scan)
  security.yml      security    15  (single trivy fs scan)
  masterplan-lock.yml check     10  (single dependency-free shell check)
  release.yml       release     45  (docker build/push + full G17 SBOM/scan/attest/verify chain)

Deliberately NOT included in this PR: a concurrency: block for
ci.yml/security.yml/masterplan-lock.yml's push+pull_request double-
trigger. ci.yml's own `integration` job comment already documents,
measured live (runs 28904/28906), that "Gitea currently ignores
workflow concurrency" on this fleet, and the repo's real fix for the
resulting double-run-on-shared-service-containers problem is the
self-identifying-container pattern already in that job, not a
concurrency group. Adding an inert concurrency: block here would give
false confidence that the duplicate-run problem is handled when it
measurably is not. Left for a follow-up decision once that fleet-wide
finding is resolved.

Part of a fleet-wide CI-speed pass (timeout-minutes audit).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-27 03:46:12 +02:00