Address workflow inconsistencies

[ajschmidt8]

There are a lot of inconsistencies in this repository that we should work to address as time permits.

A few that come to mind are:

• workflows have both .yml and .yaml extensions
• workflows matrices use different parameter names (e.g. CUDA_VER for conda vs. ctk for wheels)
• workflows use different methods for generating timestamps (wheels use a wheel-epoch-timestamp job, whereas conda workflows use a gha-tools script that uses gh to retrieve the workflow start time)
• the build job names in conda and wheel workflows are different (build for conda and wheel-build for wheels)
  • the name property in these build jobs are also inconsistent (it's unset for conda workflows, but set for wheel workflows). this leads to visual differences when viewing the workflows in the browser (see screenshot 1 below)
• The script used in wheel workflows is indicated by script, whereas the conda workflows use build_script and test_script.

This is a non-exhaustive list.

We should review the workflows for additional differences.

screenshot 1

[jameslamb]

the name property in these build jobs are also inconsistent (it's unset for conda workflows, but set for wheel workflows)

I just discovered this (forgot about this issue) over in #177.

Not having name: set meant that changes that I made to the matrices for some jobs were a bit hard to compare to previous runs, because the names were in a different format.

I think setting name: for all these workflows would be nice... keeping that formatting consistent would allow people developing on RAPIDS repos to quickly scan the list of CI checks at a glance and identify the ones they're looking for.

Something like this:

  tests:
    needs: compute-matrix
    strategy:
      fail-fast: false
      matrix: ${{ fromJSON(needs.compute-matrix.outputs.MATRIX) }}
    name: wheel-build (${{ matrix.CUDA_VER }}, ${{ matrix.PY_VER }}, ${{ matrix.ARCH }}, ${{ matrix.LINUX_VER }})

(exact details TBD, based on what's in the matrix for the particular workflow)

I think that should be a minimally-invasive changes, since as far as I know, we don't use those names in branch protections, but instead use this mechanism:

shared-workflows/.github/workflows/pr-builder.yaml

Lines 1 to 9 in da626b6

	on:
	workflow_call:
	jobs:
	run:
	runs-on: ubuntu-latest
	steps:
	# This reusable workflow should depend on all other jobs in the calling workflow.
	- run: exit 0

[AyodeAwe]

The script used in wheel workflows is indicated by script, whereas the conda workflows use build_script and test_script.

Addressing this in #191 (comment)

[AyodeAwe]

Given that #191 has been merged. The following PRs have been created to use the replace build_script and test_script with script:

1. Update script input name cudf#15301
2. Update script input name wholegraph#147
3. https://github.com/rapidsai/cugraph-ops/pull/615
4. Update script input name cuml#5802
5. Update script input name ucxx#208
6. Update script input name integration#705
7. https://github.com/rapidsai/legate-cuml/pull/11
8. https://github.com/rapidsai/cudf-private/pull/172
9. Update script input name pynvjitlink#67
10. https://github.com/rapidsai/cudf-pandas-integration/pull/101
11. Update script input name gputreeshap#44

After these are all merged, a second PR will be opened in shared-workflows removing all build_script and test_script references.

[AyodeAwe]

Second shared-workflows PR: #193

[AyodeAwe]

All the inconsistencies highlighted in this issue so far have been fixed. I will now close the issue.