-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fixing ci scripts and linking between reaching minimal amount of approvals and CI #924
Fixing ci scripts and linking between reaching minimal amount of approvals and CI #924
Conversation
9011f80
to
f0f0c39
Compare
f0f0c39
to
d37d07a
Compare
`prop = %Archethic.Governance.Code.Proposal{ alias Archethic.Governance.Code.CICD.Docker Docker.run_ci!(prop) for testing purposes |
lib/archethic/governance/code.ex
Outdated
%Proposal{changes: changes, address: address}, | ||
src_dir, | ||
persist? | ||
) do | ||
random = :crypto.strong_rand_bytes(4) |> Base.encode16() | ||
prop_file = Path.join(System.tmp_dir!(), "prop_#{random}_#{Base.encode16(address)}") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why use some randomness along the address, as we can only have one proposal per address ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I didn't change this part, but I think it was helpful in local dev but you are right we don't need to have the randomness.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A small comment otherwise seems ok
7fef8d0
to
884a7d9
Compare
884a7d9
to
1236f83
Compare
fixes: #950