actions: expose previous job attempts and allow downloading attempt logs by bircni · Pull Request #37052 · go-gitea/gitea

bircni · 2026-03-31T11:04:28Z

Added a UI to download previous logs of job runs

Adds an attempt list for a job (when it has been rerun) and a “Previous logs” section with download links per attempt.
Extends job logs download to support ?attempt= so users can fetch logs from earlier attempts (web + API).
Adds a subtle attempt badge (×N) next to jobs that have been rerun.

- Filter previous attempts on the backend (attempt < current) instead of relying on frontend slice(0,-1), making the contract explicit - Rename store field currentJobAttempts -> previousJobAttempts to match semantics - Remove computed wrapper and unused `computed` import in RepoActionView.vue - Fix container div class job-artifacts -> job-previous-logs for semantic correctness - Remove redundant comment that restated the condition Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Adds “attempt” awareness to Actions workflow job runs so users can see rerun counts and download logs for specific job attempts (web UI + API).

Changes:

Extend job/log download endpoints to accept ?attempt=<n> (web + API) and document it in Swagger.
Add frontend UI elements: per-job attempt badge and a “Previous logs” attempt list with download links.
Add backend plumbing to expose available attempts for a job and to fetch logs for a specific attempt.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 15 out of 15 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
web_src/js/modules/gitea-actions.ts	Adds `attempt` to the `ActionsJob` type for UI rendering.
web_src/js/features/repo-actions.ts	Passes new locale strings (`attempt`, `previousLogs`) into the view.
web_src/js/components/RepoActionView.vue	Renders attempt badge and new “Previous logs” attempt list + styles.
web_src/js/components/ActionRunView.ts	Introduces `ActionsAttempt` type and stores `previousJobAttempts` in view data.
web_src/js/components/ActionRunJobView.vue	Plumbs `availableAttempts` from job payload into shared store state.
routers/web/repo/actions/view.go	Exposes `availableAttempts`, adds cursor bounds check, and supports `attempt` query param for logs.
routers/common/actions.go	Extends log download helpers to load logs for a specified attempt.
routers/api/v1/repo/actions_run.go	Adds `attempt` query support and validation for API log download endpoint.
models/actions/task.go	Adds indexed `JobID` and introduces task lookup helpers by job/attempt.
templates/repo/actions/view_component.tmpl	Adds locale attributes for new UI labels.
options/locale/locale_en-US.json	Adds English strings for “Attempt” and “Previous logs”.
templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl	Documents the new `attempt` query parameter for job log download.
routers/web/web.go	Adds devtest route for mock job logs endpoint.
routers/web/devtest/mock_actions.go	Implements mock job logs endpoint and mock attempt metadata.
tests/integration/actions_route_test.go	Adds integration test coverage for downloading logs by attempt.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

models/actions/task.go

web_src/js/components/RepoActionView.vue

bircni · 2026-03-31T15:56:41Z

I think adding a dropdown here can be better, there is enough space for more elements.

I like your idea - will try

bircni · 2026-03-31T16:42:58Z

I think adding a dropdown here can be better, there is enough space for more elements.

I like your idea - will try

Dropdown is tricky.

I think you can use the fomantic "ui dropdown" in Vue directly (without writing new JS code). If anything wrong happens, I will take a look.

what do you think?

bircni · 2026-03-31T16:45:15Z

wxiaoguang

I will wait for real Actions users to review (I don't use Actions). I can do final round (code-level) review.

silverwind · 2026-04-01T11:55:36Z

How does this feature compare to GitHub UI?

wxiaoguang · 2026-04-01T12:33:40Z

models/actions/task.go

 type ActionTask struct {
 	ID       int64
-	JobID    int64
+	JobID    int64             `xorm:"index"`


You can use runner_id=? and job_id=? , then this index is not needed.

lunny · 2026-04-01T15:06:09Z

This is useful when running a failed job multiple times.

bircni · 2026-04-01T16:01:07Z

How does this feature compare to GitHub UI?

GitHub's Solution is another way where you can switch between attempts but i don't think that's necessary

silverwind · 2026-04-01T16:22:21Z

But the root cause is that gitea does not show previous runs of restarted runs, correct? I have a feeling that this root cause should be tackled, then we don't need this button which seems like a workaround.

lunny · 2026-04-01T17:06:51Z

models/actions/task.go

+	return tasks, db.GetEngine(ctx).
+		Cols("id", "job_id", "attempt", "status", "started", "stopped", "log_expired").
+		Where("job_id=?", jobID).
+		OrderBy("attempt ASC").


Since attempt is not indexed, we might could sort it in memory?

Zettat123 · 2026-04-01T17:24:48Z

But the root cause is that gitea does not show previous runs of restarted runs, correct? I have a feeling that this root cause should be tackled, then we don't need this button which seems like a workaround.

In GitHub, even if the user only rerun a single job, the system recreates all jobs within that run (meaning all job IDs change in the new attempt). For example:

I actually support this solution. It would simplify the rerun logic since we wouldn't need to modify existing job states - we'd just create new jobs as if it were the first time the run was triggered. Furthermore, this approach would resolve several rerun-related bugs I've encountered while developing #36388.

However, this would be a big task, as it requires refactoring both the rerun logic and the core run-job relationship. We should be cautious before deciding on such a refactor.

silverwind · 2026-04-01T17:29:38Z

It would simplify the rerun logic since we wouldn't need to modify existing job states

Yes, runs should be seen as a append-only, that's how it worked in Drone CI and I'm surprised Gitea implements it through mutation. Mutation is the source of many bugs.

Would changing to this way require changes in the runner or just Gitea code?

Zettat123 · 2026-04-01T17:44:36Z

Would changing to this way require changes in the runner or just Gitea code?

I'm thinking we could introduce a RunAttempt model. A new RunAttempt record would be created whenever a run is first executed or rerun. We would also create the full set of jobs for every attempt, and a RunAttemptID field would be added to ActionRunJob to link it to the corresponding RunAttempt.

silverwind · 2026-04-01T17:48:49Z

Would changing to this way require changes in the runner or just Gitea code?

I'm thinking we could introduce a RunAttempt model. A new RunAttempt record would be created whenever a run is first executed or rerun. We would also create the full set of jobs for every attempt, and a RunAttemptID field would be added to ActionRunJob to link it to the corresponding RunAttempt.

Sound reasonable, that would create a clean way of identifiying re-runs, I like it.

Zettat123 · 2026-04-01T17:54:46Z

Would changing to this way require changes in the runner or just Gitea code?

I'm thinking we could introduce a RunAttempt model. A new RunAttempt record would be created whenever a run is first executed or rerun. We would also create the full set of jobs for every attempt, and a RunAttemptID field would be added to ActionRunJob to link it to the corresponding RunAttempt.

Sound reasonable, that would create a clean way of identifiying re-runs, I like it.

I will create a PR to implement this in a few days.

bircni · 2026-04-01T18:01:08Z

I will create a PR to implement this in a few days.

so how can we continue with this PR?

Zettat123 · 2026-04-01T18:22:45Z

I will create a PR to implement this in a few days.

so how can we continue with this PR?

Maybe we can keep parts of this PR so users can still access legacy job attempt logs, but I'm worried about potential conflicts with RunAttempt. Could we mark this PR as a Draft for now and resume work after RunAttempt is introduced?

bircni · 2026-04-01T18:27:08Z

I will create a PR to implement this in a few days.

so how can we continue with this PR?

Maybe we can keep parts of this PR so users can still access legacy job attempt logs, but I'm worried about potential conflicts with RunAttempt. Could we mark this PR as a Draft for now and resume work after RunAttempt is introduced?

yes 100% - I would really really like to see this in 1.26

lunny · 2026-04-01T18:55:13Z

I will create a PR to implement this in a few days.

so how can we continue with this PR?

If that PR could be merged, I think this PR could be closed.

bircni · 2026-04-03T14:32:59Z

@Zettat123 any updates on RunAttempt? I'd really like to have this feature in 1.26

bircni · 2026-04-05T05:16:46Z

Any update on this? @Zettat123
Couldn't we start like this and do the RunAttempt Migration after?
I really wanted that in 1.26

bircni · 2026-04-05T07:18:43Z

@silverwind @lunny how can we continue here?

Zettat123 · 2026-04-05T16:55:33Z

Any update on this? @Zettat123 Couldn't we start like this and do the RunAttempt Migration after? I really wanted that in 1.26

Thanks for following this feature! It currently has a few bugs that I am working on fixing, but I'll create the PR later today.

Zettat123 · 2026-04-06T06:03:23Z

Would changing to this way require changes in the runner or just Gitea code?

I'm thinking we could introduce a RunAttempt model. A new RunAttempt record would be created whenever a run is first executed or rerun. We would also create the full set of jobs for every attempt, and a RunAttemptID field would be added to ActionRunJob to link it to the corresponding RunAttempt.

Sound reasonable, that would create a clean way of identifiying re-runs, I like it.

I will create a PR to implement this in a few days.

PR is created: #37119. It's large and I'm still in the process of testing it. Any testing or reviews are welcome!

bircni · 2026-04-06T06:54:20Z

PR is created: #37119. It's large and I'm still in the process of testing it. Any testing or reviews are welcome!

Will have look at it but I think we have to delay it to 1.27 🫤

bircni and others added 5 commits March 31, 2026 00:18

commit

00f8374

fixes

e5bebaa

ui

7935d91

ui enhancement

f91b4f2

GiteaBot added the lgtm/need 2 This PR needs two approvals by maintainers to be considered for merging. label Mar 31, 2026

github-actions bot added modifies/api This PR adds API routes or modifies them modifies/go Pull requests that update Go code modifies/templates This PR modifies the template files modifies/frontend labels Mar 31, 2026

bircni added 2 commits March 31, 2026 13:17

fix swagger

0803a34

fixes

4fb4b2a

bircni marked this pull request as ready for review March 31, 2026 13:02

bircni requested review from ChristopherHX and Zettat123 and removed request for Zettat123 March 31, 2026 14:38

silverwind requested a review from Copilot March 31, 2026 15:17

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of silverwind March 31, 2026 15:18 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

models/actions/task.go Show resolved Hide resolved

web_src/js/components/RepoActionView.vue Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

web_src/js/components/RepoActionView.vue Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fixes to make copilot happy

ff72aa3

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

wxiaoguang marked this pull request as draft March 31, 2026 15:41

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

move ui

c5fe724

bircni added 2 commits March 31, 2026 18:46

remove stale div

29e6046

remove stale css

13b92aa

bircni marked this pull request as ready for review April 1, 2026 06:39

Merge branch 'main' into feature/access-previous-logs

c417779

bircni requested a review from wxiaoguang April 1, 2026 06:39

wxiaoguang reviewed Apr 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

lunny reviewed Apr 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

bircni marked this pull request as draft April 1, 2026 18:27

Uh oh!

Conversation

bircni commented Mar 31, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

This comment was marked as resolved.

This comment was marked as resolved.

This comment was marked as resolved.

bircni commented Mar 31, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

bircni commented Mar 31, 2026

Uh oh!

bircni commented Mar 31, 2026

Uh oh!

wxiaoguang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

silverwind commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

wxiaoguang Apr 1, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lunny commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

bircni commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

silverwind commented Apr 1, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lunny Apr 1, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Zettat123 commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

silverwind commented Apr 1, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Zettat123 commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

silverwind commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

Zettat123 commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

bircni commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

Zettat123 commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

bircni commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

lunny commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

bircni commented Apr 3, 2026

Uh oh!

bircni commented Apr 5, 2026

Uh oh!

bircni commented Apr 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Zettat123 commented Apr 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Zettat123 commented Apr 6, 2026

Uh oh!

bircni commented Apr 6, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

bircni commented Mar 31, 2026 •

edited

Loading

silverwind commented Apr 1, 2026 •

edited

Loading

silverwind commented Apr 1, 2026 •

edited

Loading