-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Verify the Actions spend actually dropped #39
Copy link
Copy link
Open
Labels
area: toolingReusable workflows, Gradle, templates, Renovate, and API tooling.Reusable workflows, Gradle, templates, Renovate, and API tooling.component: ciContinuous integration workflow or check behavior.Continuous integration workflow or check behavior.governanceRepo protection, permissions, visibilityRepo protection, permissions, visibilitypriority: P2Medium; normal planned work.Medium; normal planned work.type: choreMaintenance work without intended behavior change.Maintenance work without intended behavior change.
Description
Activity
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
area: toolingReusable workflows, Gradle, templates, Renovate, and API tooling.Reusable workflows, Gradle, templates, Renovate, and API tooling.component: ciContinuous integration workflow or check behavior.Continuous integration workflow or check behavior.governanceRepo protection, permissions, visibilityRepo protection, permissions, visibilitypriority: P2Medium; normal planned work.Medium; normal planned work.type: choreMaintenance work without intended behavior change.Maintenance work without intended behavior change.
What to build
Sixteen pull requests were opened to cut the estate's private-repo Actions spend, with a predicted result: roughly 3,000 billable minutes a month down to roughly 800. Every one of those predictions is a model, built from job durations and a rounding rule. None has been observed.
That gap matters more than usual here. The changes were made while the org was out of Actions minutes, so not one of the private-repo pull requests was ever verified by CI — they were reviewed by reading and by local linting only. A collapse that silently dropped a check, or a shim removal that quietly stopped boarding issues, would look exactly like success.
Confirm what actually happened, once the changes have been live long enough for a full billing period to be meaningful.
Read the real consumption from the billing API and compare it against the predictions. Where a figure disagrees materially, find out why rather than adjusting the estimate to match — a workflow that did not get cheaper usually did not get changed the way the pull request claimed.
Then confirm the changes did not cost coverage, which is the failure mode the missing CI would have caught:
Note that the earlier per-workflow estimates were derived from a single busy week and projected forward; the month's actual rate was around half that. Expect the shape of the saving to hold and the absolute figures to be optimistic, and correct the record rather than quietly restating it.
Acceptance criteria
Blocked by