oh... this needs extra care on the setting side. I don't have a clear idea how to cater this change yet 🤔

It seems that I don't have the permission to read branch protection rules.

Waiting for adjusting branch protection rules

The problem is that it's not possible to reflect that condition in the branch protection rules.
The solution would be to have a closing job, one that would be required to merge the PR (it would make easier to handle supported version changes too), and have a home-made check skipping the tests (because the path selector applies to the workflow, not jobs).
Or there might be some action dedicated to do that, but it's not easy to make this using Github Actions path only.

So not sure if it's worth it (given tests are now also running faster)

Agree. Now I prefer not to touch the branch protection rules.

Potential solution by ChatGPT:

name: CI

on:
  pull_request:

jobs:
  detect_changes:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    outputs:
      relevant: ${{ steps.filter.outputs.relevant }}
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4

      - id: filter
        uses: dorny/paths-filter@v3
        with:
          filters: |
            relevant:
              - "src/**"
              - "tests/**"
              - ".github/workflows/**"

  build_and_test:
    needs: detect_changes
    if: ${{ needs.detect_changes.outputs.relevant == 'true' }}
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
      - run: echo "Run build/test here"

  early_success:
    needs: detect_changes
    if: ${{ needs.detect_changes.outputs.relevant != 'true' }}
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - run: echo "No relevant file changes; skipping remaining jobs."

Behavior:

• If relevant files changed → build_and_test runs.
• If not → early_success runs, and build_and_test is skipped.
• The overall workflow finishes successfully (skipped jobs do not fail a run).

Thanks for the action! 🙏🏼 I'll keep it, this is something I often need.

However this wouldn't solve the branch protection issue.
I would change it this way to have both the branch protection working and the benefit from the closure task:

name: CI

on:
  pull_request:

jobs:
  detect_changes:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    outputs:
      relevant: ${{ steps.filter.outputs.relevant }}
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
      - id: filter
        uses: dorny/paths-filter@v3
        with:
          filters: |
            relevant:
              - "src/**"
              - "tests/**"
              - ".github/workflows/**"

  python-check:
    needs: detect_changes
    if: ${{ needs.detect_changes.outputs.relevant == 'true' }}
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
      - run: echo "Run build/test here"

  success:
    needs: [python-check]
	# Force to run when python-check has been skipped
	# Skipped if python-check failed
    if: ${{ needs.detect_changes.outputs.relevant != 'true' && always() || !failure() }}
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - run: echo "CI Success"

This way we can use success as only branch protection condition:

• will run ASAP if no changes require testing
• will run only if test succeeds
• won't have to be changed when we move to Python 3.11-3.15

However, for this to be complete, you will need to split out the linting part.
Enabling pre-commit.ci could do the job but we would have to move the check-commit as a pre-commit hook.

Yep, I think what @noirbizarre suggests is better. We can't configurate the branch protection rule that way

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 97.88%. Comparing base (1d89195) to head (42c592b).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on master.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1738   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.88%   97.88%           
=======================================
  Files          60       60           
  Lines        2606     2606           
=======================================
  Hits         2551     2551           
  Misses         55       55           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

I cannot access the branch protection rule, so the latest iteration is based on my assumption that python-check should succeed for each platform, each python version.

Please let me know if there is a cleaner approach.