Update misleading note in section-defining-outputs-for-jobs.md

[piotrekkr]

Why:

Because note about handling outputs when using strategy matrix is misleading and wrong in multiple places. Here is my overview of what is wrong:

1. $GITHUB_OUTPUT is shared between all steps in a job. If you use the same output name in multiple steps, the last step to write to the output will override the value

   This is simply not true. Each step has it's own unique outputs file that it can write to. Next steps cannot override previous step outputs which is even show in usage example.

2. If your job uses a matrix and writes to $GITHUB_OUTPUT, the content will be overwritten for each matrix combination.

   Using $GITHUB_OUTPUT does not override any job outputs. It can only set or override step outputs. Job need to define its own outputs and it can use steps context for this but this is not required for job outputs definition. Author of this note probably mixed step outputs with job outputs. Each job outputs inside matrix are combined, this is true, but author forgot to mention that last finished job in matrix will add new and override matching job outputs from all previous jobs.

3. You can use the matrix context to create unique output names for each job configuration. For more information, see "AUTOTITLE."

   There is no way to use contexts within job outputs names. I tested it and always had an error from GitHub when trying to run workflow. Something like this is not allowed:

   jobs:
     job1:
       runs-on: ubuntu-latest
       outputs:
         output_${{ matrix.job }}: ${{ steps.gen_output.outputs.output_1 }}
       strategy:
         matrix:
           job: [1, 2, 3]
   
   

What's being changed (if available, include any code snippets, screenshots, or gifs):

I've changed the note content and added an example of how matrix job outputs are combined.

Check off the following:

• I have reviewed my changes in staging, available via the View deployment link in this PR's timeline (this link will be available after opening the PR).

  • For content changes, you will also see an automatically generated comment with links directly to pages you've modified. The comment won't appear if your PR only edits files in the data directory.

• For content changes, I have completed the self-review checklist.

[github-actions]

Automatically generated comment ℹ️

This comment is automatically generated and will be overwritten every time changes are committed to this branch.

The table contains an overview of files in the content directory that have been changed in this pull request. It's provided to make it easy to review your changes on the staging site. Please note that changes to the data directory will not show up in this table.

---

Content directory changes

You may find it useful to copy this table into the pull request summary. There you can edit it to share links to important articles or changes and to give a high-level overview of how the changes in your pull request support the overall goals of the pull request.

Source	Preview	Production	What Changed
actions/writing-workflows/choosing-what-your-workflow-does/defining-outputs-for-jobs.md	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.13 3.12 3.11 3.10	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.13 3.12 3.11 3.10	from reusable
actions/writing-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions.md	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.13 3.12 3.11 3.10	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.13 3.12 3.11 3.10	from reusable

---

fpt: Free, Pro, Team
ghec: GitHub Enterprise Cloud
ghes: GitHub Enterprise Server

[nguyenalex836]

@piotrekkr Thanks so much for opening a PR! I'll get this triaged for review ✨

[github-actions]

Thanks for opening a pull request! We've triaged this issue for technical review by a subject matter expert 👀

[thyeggman]

Good catch, thanks for the contribution! I think it's worth adding, if only for the fact that it's removing incorrect information. The example should be the base use case though, as users might inadvertently copy it without knowing what it's supposed to do. The warning can be added separately 👍

[thyeggman]

Just a few more corrections to the workflow to match the new matrix strategy 👍

[piotrekkr]

Just a few more corrections to the workflow to match the new matrix strategy 👍

@thyeggman All is be done I think. Should I resolve discussions or should it be you?

[nguyenalex836]

@piotrekkr Thank you so much for working with @thyeggman on those suggestions! 💛 I'll update the branch and get this merged once tests are passing 🍏

[github-actions]

Thanks very much for contributing! Your pull request has been merged 🎉 You should see your changes appear on the site in approximately 24 hours. If you're looking for your next contribution, check out our help wanted issues ⚡