#10647 introduced a regression which was detected by the [matrix-dynamic end-to-end test](0e0b1429e6/actions/example-matrix-dynamic/.forgejo/workflows/test.yml), resulting in [test failures](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/end-to-end/actions/runs/4608/jobs/2/attempt/1).
The cause of this regression was an added code path which is invoked when a job is being reparsed due to being incomplete, in which the original `needs` value of the job is preserved. To describe it in detail, here's an incomplete job...
```
on: [push]
jobs:
 # ...
 matrix-job:
 runs-on: docker
 needs: define-matrix
 strategy:
 matrix: ${{ fromJSON(needs.define-matrix.outputs.matrix-value) }}
 steps: # ...
```
This job is "incomplete" when it is parsed initially because the `define-matrix` job needs to be completed before its matrix can be evaluated into the correct jobs to run. It `needs: define-matrix`. When it is first parsed by Forgejo, `needs: define-matrix` is pulled out of the job definition and stored in the database, in the `action_run_job` table's `needs` column, because Forgejo will be the one managing when it is run by detecting the completion of the `define-matrix` job.
During #10647, a change was made which caused new jobs' which have their own `needs` (from reusable workflows) to have their `needs` be merged with the `needs` that were stored in the database. The regression is that when a job is expanded, it will still be considered a blocked job because it has a `needs` list (even though we know that those jobs are complete):
03e2ecfbc4/models/actions/run.go (L369-L370)
As for why it was originally added in #10647? Unfortunately the comment that I left in the code doesn't explain the functional problem it was attempting to solve, and just describes it as-if the original needs are still needed for *something*. 🙄 It makes perfect sense to me, right now, that we would **not** keep `needs` values that are already known to be complete.
I've run through my new reusable workflow end-to-end test (https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/end-to-end/pulls/1362) with this codepath removed and it works perfectly fine.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
 - [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
 - [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
 - [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
 - [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [ ] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
Reviewed-on: forgejo/forgejo#10658
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>