Skip to content
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

[CI] Reusable CI #24

Merged
merged 6 commits into from Dec 8, 2022
Merged

Conversation

orensbruli
Copy link
Contributor

Modified build.yaml to use reusable workflow.

Signed-off-by: Esteban Martinena orensbruli@gmail.com

@orensbruli
Copy link
Contributor Author

The checks are really failing but probably not set to be needed to merge?
This is the run of the same PR in my fork:
https://github.com/orensbruli/rmf_utils/actions/runs/3071565382

@orensbruli
Copy link
Contributor Author

Not sure if it ever worked or if it's failing with the same error now as 3 months ago:
https://github.com/open-rmf/rmf_utils/actions/workflows/build.yaml

@mxgrey
Copy link
Contributor

mxgrey commented Sep 17, 2022

Looks like it's just style complaints:

  2: --- include/rmf_utils/clone_ptr.hpp
  2: +++ include/rmf_utils/clone_ptr.hpp.uncrustify
  2: @@ -42 +42 @@
  2: -clone_ptr<T> make_clone(Args&&... args);
  2: +clone_ptr<T> make_clone(Args&& ... args);
  2: @@ -197 +197 @@
  2: -clone_ptr<T> make_clone(Args&&... args)
  2: +clone_ptr<T> make_clone(Args&& ... args)
  2: 
  2: Code style divergence in file 'include/rmf_utils/impl_ptr.hpp':
  2: 
  2: --- include/rmf_utils/impl_ptr.hpp
  2: +++ include/rmf_utils/impl_ptr.hpp.uncrustify
  2: @@ -323 +323 @@
  2: -inline unique_impl_ptr<T> make_unique_impl(Args&&... args)
  2: +inline unique_impl_ptr<T> make_unique_impl(Args&& ... args)
  2: @@ -477 +477 @@
  2: -inline impl_ptr<T> make_impl(Args&&... args)
  2: +inline impl_ptr<T> make_impl(Args&& ... args)
  2: @@ -484 +484 @@
  2: -impl_ptr<U> make_derived_impl(Args&&... args)
  2: +impl_ptr<U> make_derived_impl(Args&& ... args)

Signed-off-by: Esteban Martinena <orensbruli@gmail.com>
@orensbruli
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks like it's just style complaints:

Fixed those but it looks like for focal ones it's the same problem we found here: open-rmf/rmf#202 (comment)

We could try to go with any of the two options suggested here and wait (open-rmf/rmf#202 (comment)) or I could avoid the workflow to run in focal-based distros. What do you think?

Signed-off-by: Esteban Martinena <orensbruli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Esteban Martinena <orensbruli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Esteban Martinena <orensbruli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Esteban Martinena <orensbruli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Esteban Martinena <orensbruli@gmail.com>
@orensbruli orensbruli merged commit 059bc4b into open-rmf:main Dec 8, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants