Skip benchmarks in ci when running in fork repositories

[Cycloctane]

What do these changes do?

Forks do not have token for codspeed, which can make benchmark job in ci fail if aiohttp contributors want to run test workflow on their forks. This pr make unnecessary steps skip if triggered workflow is not in the main repository.

Are there changes in behavior for the user?

aiohttp contributors can now run github action workflows to test changes in their forks without unnecessary errors.

Is it a substantial burden for the maintainers to support this?

Related issue number

Checklist

• I think the code is well written
• Unit tests for the changes exist
• Documentation reflects the changes
• If you provide code modification, please add yourself to CONTRIBUTORS.txt
  • The format is <Name> <Surname>.
  • Please keep alphabetical order, the file is sorted by names.
• Add a new news fragment into the CHANGES/ folder

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #11737 will not alter performance

_{Comparing Cycloctane:skip-workflows-in-forks (4da6f39) with master (056d929)}

Summary

✅ 59 untouched

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 98.74%. Comparing base (e260b15) to head (ce2b9b3).
⚠️ Report is 112 commits behind head on master.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #11737      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.74%   98.74%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         127      127              
  Lines       43448    43754     +306     
  Branches     2326     2328       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits        42903    43205     +302     
  Misses        389      389              
- Partials      156      160       +4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
CI-GHA	98.61% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
OS-Linux	98.35% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
OS-Windows	96.68% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
OS-macOS	97.57% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Py-3.10.11	97.12% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
Py-3.10.18	97.61% <ø> (-0.04%)	⬇️
Py-3.11.13	97.81% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
Py-3.11.9	97.32% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
Py-3.12.10	97.43% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
Py-3.12.11	97.92% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
Py-3.13.7	97.92% <ø> (-0.29%)	⬇️
Py-3.13.9	97.41% <ø> (?)
Py-3.14.0	98.12% <ø> (-0.04%)	⬇️
Py-3.14.0t	97.19% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
Py-pypy3.10.16-7.3.19	92.95% <ø> (-3.43%)	⬇️
VM-macos	97.57% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
VM-ubuntu	98.35% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
VM-windows	96.68% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[webknjaz]

The preferred solution is storing the plain text token fore Codecov. As for codspeed, I haven't seen it failing. Do you have any examples?

FWIW, the repo checks should be done through repo IDs.

[webknjaz]

I wonder, though, if benchmarking could still run but just skip uploading the results, conditionally. Could you check?

[webknjaz]

I wonder, though, if benchmarking could still run but just skip uploading the results, conditionally. Could you check?

@Cycloctane have you been able to check if this is possible?