GitHub Actions Workflow Stuck? When Your Cache Betrays Your Code

Imagine pushing a critical update to your GitHub Actions workflow, only to find your CI/CD pipeline stubbornly running an old, incorrect version. This frustrating scenario, where your actions seem to ignore your latest code, can halt releases and significantly impact your team's development velocity. This community insight dives into a recent discussion where a developer faced this exact challenge, uncovering a surprising root cause and practical workarounds.

The Mystery of the Stale Workflow

Our discussion began with anthonypdawson's predicament: his GitHub Actions workflow was failing with errors like Permission denied and command not found for a script (scripts/add_release_reason.py) that no longer existed in his workflow file. Despite his local file being updated, the action run referenced an outdated version, completely blocking his releases.

Run cp README.md README.md.bak /home/runner/work/_temp/d6b35d15-baf9-409c-ba83-9ad8371aa0b2.sh: line 7: scripts/add_release_reason.py: Permission denied /home/runner/work/_temp/d6b35d15-baf9-409c-ba83-9ad8371aa0b2.sh: line 7: for: command not found Error: Process completed with exit code 127.

Initial Diagnoses and Unsuccessful Fixes

Community member MasteraSnackin quickly identified the core issue: GitHub Actions was likely using an older commit of the workflow file. Common solutions suggested included:

• Manually triggering the workflow via the "Run workflow" button.
• Checking the workflow file at the specific commit SHA shown in the failed run.
• Making a small change to the workflow file, committing, and re-pushing.
• Leveraging the workflow_dispatch trigger for manual runs.

However, for anthonypdawson, these standard troubleshooting steps proved ineffective, leading to continued frustration and a significant hit to his team's release performance metrics.

The Unexpected Workaround: Renaming the Workflow

In a surprising turn, anthonypdawson found a solution that bypassed all conventional wisdom: he created a new workflow file with a different name. This immediately resolved the issue, allowing his releases to proceed. While effective, this workaround highlighted a deeper, more persistent problem.

Unmasking the Root Cause: GitHub's Internal Caching Bug

Both MasteraSnackin and rinas21 confirmed that the issue was not a configuration error but rather a rare, server-side caching bug within GitHub Actions. Here's why:

• Workflow File Tied to Commit: GitHub Actions uses the workflow file from the commit that triggered the run, not necessarily the latest version on the branch.
• Stale Cache: Even with new commits or manual triggers, GitHub's internal cache can sometimes get "stuck" on an older workflow definition.
• Renaming Bypasses Cache: Creating a new file name effectively creates a new cache key, forcing GitHub to fetch the latest definition.

Other potential, though less likely, contributors include workflow cache corruption, interactions with branch protection rules, or issues within composite actions or reusable workflows.

Key Takeaways and Proactive Measures for Reliable CI/CD

When facing stubborn workflow issues that seem to defy logic, consider these insights and actions:

• Verify Commit SHA: Always check the "Set up job" step in a failed run to see the exact commit SHA of the workflow file being executed. Compare it to your branch HEAD.
• Strategic Renaming: If standard fixes fail, renaming the workflow file (e.g., my-workflow.yml to my-workflow-v2.yml) can be a quick, albeit temporary, fix.
• Delete and Re-add: As an alternative to renaming, try deleting the problematic workflow file from .github/workflows, pushing the change, then re-adding it and pushing again. This can also force a cache refresh.
• Contact GitHub Support: For persistent or recurring issues, open a GitHub Support ticket. Provide the specific run URLs; they have the ability to investigate and clear server-side cache definitions.

Understanding these internal quirks is crucial for maintaining robust and predictable CI/CD pipelines. While GitHub Actions generally offers excellent reliability, being prepared for these rare caching anomalies can save significant debugging time and ensure your development performance metrics remain consistently high.