# Rolling Builds to cancel all builds related to Bitrise Start Build

**URL:** <https://discuss.bitrise.io/t/rolling-builds-to-cancel-all-builds-related-to-bitrise-start-build/17974>\
**Category:** Builds\
**Created:** [September 15, 2021, 6:35am UTC](https://discuss.bitrise.io/t/rolling-builds-to-cancel-all-builds-related-to-bitrise-start-build/17974 "2021-09-15T06:35:40Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![macieklinearity](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discuss.bitrise.io/macieklinearity/32/3945_2.png) [@macieklinearity](https://discuss.bitrise.io/u/macieklinearity)\
**Post date:** [September 15, 2021, 6:35am UTC](https://discuss.bitrise.io/t/rolling-builds-to-cancel-all-builds-related-to-bitrise-start-build/17974/1 "2021-09-15T06:35:40Z")

</div>

## Description of the feature request

I just realized that **Rolling Builds settings don’t currently work** , or at least do not bring the optimal/expected effect **when we want to trigger more than one build (via Bitrise Start Build) for a given PR/push/tag (via trigger map)**.

Let’s say that when you push something to the PR `pr_to_develop` kicks in and enqueues two builds - `mac_tests` and `ios_tests` (Bitrise Start Build). When we make another push to that PR and `mac_tests` and `ios_tests` builds are still in progress - they won’t get canceled, cause currently Rolling Builds knows only about `pr_to_develop` and can cancel that at most (unlikely cause it’s pretty brief). Instead, new builds will be enqueued. Sth like that happens:

 ![IMG_FD4265E6C789-1](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/bitrise/original/2X/b/b2d297f711769b589eb42caba93316cb4bdeeea7.jpeg)

I have seen a ton of discussions/feature requests where people ask to develop a one-to-many (trigger to workflows) feature for trigger map, and as far as I see - we’re not getting into that direction. In such a situation it would be nice to at least improve that behavior.

## Use case / for what or how I would use it

When triggering multiple builds via Bitrise Start Build and Rolling Builds setting is enabled.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cathy.harmon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discuss.bitrise.io/cathy.harmon/32/2674_2.png) [@cathy.harmon](https://discuss.bitrise.io/u/cathy.harmon)\
**Post date:** [September 21, 2021, 6:55pm UTC](https://discuss.bitrise.io/t/rolling-builds-to-cancel-all-builds-related-to-bitrise-start-build/17974/2 "2021-09-21T18:55:53Z")

</div>

Hello,

I will be happy to include this as a feature request. Quick question - what about manually started builds? If there is a build against same branch/same workflow that is running or waiting that was manually started, should it also be cancelled? And would you want a manually started build (same branch/workflow) to cancel any triggered builds (triggered by webhook or by Bitrise Start Build)?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![macieklinearity](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discuss.bitrise.io/macieklinearity/32/3945_2.png) [@macieklinearity](https://discuss.bitrise.io/u/macieklinearity)\
**Post date:** [September 27, 2021, 9:17am UTC](https://discuss.bitrise.io/t/rolling-builds-to-cancel-all-builds-related-to-bitrise-start-build/17974/3 "2021-09-27T09:17:03Z")

</div>

Hi @cathy.harmon,

Thanks for the reply! Let me make sure that I got you. You mean such a scenario (in my the context of my example):

1. User manually enqueues `mac_tests`
2. Then somebody (hook or Bitrise Start Build) triggers `pr_to_develop`  
And another scenario:
3. We have a `mac_tests` (triggered by `pr_to_develop`) running
4. We create `mac_tests`manually  
Right?

I’m not 100% sure, but I guess the same/normal/single-workflow rolling builds canceling strategy can be applied here. In general, I think it would be simpler to make it without mixing manuals/hooks and possibly then look for improvement 🙂