chore(e2e): Replace deprecated buildjet with native github cache#61894
chore(e2e): Replace deprecated buildjet with native github cache#61894DerDreschner wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
DerDreschner
requested review from
Altahrim,
ArtificialOwl,
icewind1991 and
salmart-dev
and removed request for
a team
|
/backport to stable34 |
|
/backport to stable33 |
|
/backport to stable32 |
DerDreschner
changed the title
DerDreschner
force-pushed
the
chore/remove-buildjet
branch
9 times, most recently
from
e35ac18 to
fb11efe
Compare
Signed-off-by: David Dreschner <david.dreschner@nextcloud.com>
DerDreschner
force-pushed
the
chore/remove-buildjet
branch
from
fb11efe to
9bca81f
Compare
That mechanism was build in the last months and tested with Talk and some other apps. |
Uhh, that's nice!! Thanks for letting me know! |
| echo ' 1. Extract the folder from the zip file' | ||
| echo ' 2. run "npx playwright show-report name-of-my-extracted-playwright-report"' | ||
| - name: Delete context on success |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should be in the summary? so other restarts would still have it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary might run before the merge job started and leave the merge job without context. That's why I put it in there. Don't ask me why I know that. 😄 Restarts always have them, as the context is only being deleted when the tests succeed (and there is no more need to re-run the workflow).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Deleting it as a step that needs the summary and the merge succeeded would be another way of doing it. But having a separate "Delete context" job without having a "Create context" one seemed a bit inconsistent to me.
2 participants
Summary
The cypress and playwright workflows use buildjet for caching. This service isn't being maintained anymore for GitHub Actions (see https://buildjet.com/for-github-actions/blog/we-are-shutting-down ). It works for the moment, but having in mind that it's being officially shut down end of March... It's only a matter of time until our e2e tests will fall apart if we keep using it.
Keep in mind that this change was made in the template repository months ago and could have been synced automatically, if the used workflows here wouldn't have diverged quite a bit from the templates. It wouldn't be bad if we could bring those together again or at least have a mechanism to add modifications to workflows during the sync process.
As the scope of GitHub caches are limited to the own branch and their parents (e.g., master), it might make sense to run it on master and stable branches regularly to keep a suitable cached copy for more runs. That would be an equivalent strategy like we do for CodeQL (this workflow file is creating all those
codeql-overlay-base-databasecaches listed here).Checklist
3. to review, feature component)stable32)AI (if applicable)