For GHA, example.

CC @alvicsam

Why should CI checks be disabled for draft PRs?
If I see CI failing, I move the PR to draft (so it wouldn't get reviewed in the meantime) and fix it until CI's green.

50 error messages on a push is certainly too much. people should run tests locally anyway

Wait, how do these error messages look? Maybe we should instead make it less spammy?
IMO, checks should just be red, with all the info inside, they shouldn't be sending messages.

I guess this relates to personal settings as I configured to receive notifications on failed CI run and there are bunch of them configured in this repo.

majority of the CI run are waste of compute on draft PR anyway

majority of the CI run are waste of compute on draft PR anyway

I agree.

If I see CI failing, I move the PR to draft (so it wouldn't get reviewed in the meantime) and fix it until CI's green.

You are one of the few that does this. Most contributors, even maintainers will do incremental pushes straight to PR during development without locally running any tests, and will only start looking at tests and CI at the very end, when they are ready for review.
In the meantime all those incremental pushes just uselessly burn a lot of electricity/money.

I hope we can at least we can standardize a process of doing dev in "draft" mode, then only mark PR as ready after it is (at least mostly) ready with tests passing on dev's machine. CI would only run for "ready" PRs, and not Drafts.