Official matrix configuration example doesn't work

[WOnder93]

🏷️ Discussion Type

Bug

💬 Feature/Topic Area

Workflow Configuration

Discussion Details

The example shown in this page doesn't actually work as documented. When I put the same matrix configuration into an actual workflow file, I get the following combinations (i.e. the color and shape is not added at all):

• {fruit: apple, animal: cat}
• {fruit: apple, animal: dog}
• {fruit: banana}
• {fruit: banana, animal: cat}
• {fruit: pear, animal: cat}
• {fruit: pear, animal: dog}

Could this be fixed please? I would like to use the functionality in my workflow, but I can't because of the bug :(

[github-actions[bot]]

💬 Your Product Feedback Has Been Submitted 🎉

Thank you for taking the time to share your insights with us! Your feedback is invaluable as we build a better GitHub experience for all our users.

Here's what you can expect moving forward ⏩

• Your input will be carefully reviewed and cataloged by members of our product teams. 
  • Due to the high volume of submissions, we may not always be able to provide individual responses.
  • Rest assured, your feedback will help chart our course for product improvements.
• Other users may engage with your post, sharing their own perspectives or experiences. 
• GitHub staff may reach out for further clarification or insight. 
  • We may 'Answer' your discussion if there is a current solution, workaround, or roadmap/changelog post related to the feedback.

Where to look to see what's shipping 👀

• Read the Changelog for real-time updates on the latest GitHub features, enhancements, and calls for feedback.
• Explore our Product Roadmap, which details upcoming major releases and initiatives.

What you can do in the meantime 💻

• Upvote and comment on other user feedback Discussions that resonate with you.
• Add more information at any point! Useful details include: use cases, relevant labels, desired outcomes, and any accompanying screenshots.

As a member of the GitHub community, your participation is essential. While we can't promise that every suggestion will be implemented, we want to emphasize that your feedback is instrumental in guiding our decisions and priorities.

Thank you once again for your contribution to making GitHub even better! We're grateful for your ongoing support and collaboration in shaping the future of our platform. ⭐

[asp53826]

The six entries you listed are the six jobs GitHub should create, but they do not by themselves show the complete matrix context. If those came from the generated job labels in the Actions UI, the labels can show the base axes (fruit and animal) without being a serialized view of every property added by include.

Add this temporary step to the matrix job and inspect its output:

- name: Show complete matrix context
  env:
    MATRIX_JSON: ${{ toJSON(matrix) }}
  run: printf '%s\n' "$MATRIX_JSON"

You can also make every value explicit in the job name while debugging:

name: >-
  fruit=${{ matrix.fruit }}
  animal=${{ matrix.animal }}
  color=${{ matrix.color }}
  shape=${{ matrix.shape }}

For the exact documentation example, the first four original jobs should contain the added values:

• apple/cat → color: pink, shape: circle
• apple/dog → color: green, shape: circle
• pear/cat → color: pink
• pear/dog → color: green

The two added banana jobs are different: GitHub documents that new combinations created by include are not treated as original combinations, so they do not inherit the earlier color entries. Seeing no color on those two is expected.

Official explanation: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/how-tos/write-workflows/choose-what-workflows-do/run-job-variations#expanding-or-adding-matrix-configurations

If toJSON(matrix) also lacks color and shape on the first four jobs, then there is a real discrepancy. In that case, please paste the complete strategy.matrix block and one job log (or a public run URL); YAML indentation, a second matrix definition, or evaluating a different context would be the next things to check. But the six abbreviated labels alone are consistent with the documented expansion rather than evidence that include failed.