-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 768
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
Run CLI sanity checks with Gradle #4186
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4186 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 84.12% 84.19% +0.07%
- Complexity 3201 3233 +32
============================================
Files 467 468 +1
Lines 10102 10185 +83
Branches 1773 1786 +13
============================================
+ Hits 8498 8575 +77
+ Misses 673 671 -2
- Partials 931 939 +8
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
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 know that this task exactly the same as running the Java -jar
but wouldn't it be better to keep the ci as it was before? I mean, adding this to the check task seems a good idea, but we don't need to change ci.
We could, but to me it's neater to have everything configured & run from Gradle directly, and using the same tasks in CI. If we add the tasks to the Gradle build but leave CI alone then it's one method to run this in Gradle, and another in CI... why not keep it consistent? |
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.
Definitely an improvement. I think we would just lose a bit on the E2E testing here, but overall is worth to merge. What I mean is that now we're effectively testing that a detekt-cli-all.jar
is built and that can be invoked. Using only gradle we might end up in situation where say the .jar output path changed and we don't test this scenario. Not a problem overall.
My idea was just to keep it as similar as how our users use it. I know, it should be the same but just to be sure. I'm not against this change. It was just my 2 cents. If you think that it is better to keep the ci more consistent I'm fine with it too. |
In my opinion, keep the ci more consistent has the benefits of easily applying |
I find that I occasionally prep a PR, run
gradlew build
successfully then submit. Then there are failures because there are some CI jobs that aren't captured when running thebuild
task.This PR migrates these jobs to Gradle tasks that are run on
check
so a full successfulbuild
run will also pass on CI.