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

Use GitHub Actions #485

Merged
merged 6 commits into from May 19, 2020
Merged

Use GitHub Actions #485

merged 6 commits into from May 19, 2020

Conversation

stasm
Copy link
Contributor

@stasm stasm commented May 18, 2020

Let's try something simple first: one workflow per package, using make dist.

@stasm stasm force-pushed the actions branch 2 times, most recently from 5810881 to 75a0ab6 Compare May 18, 2020 08:54
@stasm
Copy link
Contributor Author

stasm commented May 18, 2020

The actions pass in my fork: https://github.com/stasm/fluent.js/actions?query=branch%3Aactions

Copy link
Contributor

@Pike Pike left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice to see them passing.

Would you want to have wider compat-ranges on dependencies, and test those?

That would conflict with the use of npm ci, for one. Also, you could prep that in the same way we did for python-fluent, and add a matrix for that already.

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
name: "@fluent/bundle"
on: [push, pull_request]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd restrict these, similar to what we've done in python-fluent. That way it's obvious what should happen on pushes to gh-pages. Or maybe just exclude gh-pages? I haven't figured out how much the action config of one branch blends others. Maybe not even remotely as much as I thought it would.

Also, do you want to start restricting when automation is run for what now or in a follow-up?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I pushed a commit which restricts the workflows to pushes to master and PRs against master.

@stasm
Copy link
Contributor Author

stasm commented May 18, 2020

Would you want to have wider compat-ranges on dependencies, and test those?

That would conflict with the use of npm ci, for one. Also, you could prep that in the same way we did for python-fluent, and add a matrix for that already.

Can you explain what you mean by this? What kind of matrix does python-fluent define for this purpose?

@Pike
Copy link
Contributor

Pike commented May 18, 2020

Can you explain what you mean by this? What kind of matrix does python-fluent define for this purpose?

In https://github.com/projectfluent/python-fluent/blob/9f88c05094fbe34899775df19184589b962a42fa/.github/workflows/fluent.runtime.yml#L28 I'm testing across all the versions of fluent-syntax listed. Right now, just one. If you look at the resulting jobs, https://github.com/projectfluent/python-fluent/runs/678936556 shows that it's running the tests against various python versions and syntax 0.17.0.

@stasm
Copy link
Contributor Author

stasm commented May 18, 2020

Oh, interesting! I think I must have missed this last week.

I think this could be useful for testing different versions of React in @fluent/react, but I'm concerned about the list of version getting out of date quickly.

@Pike
Copy link
Contributor

Pike commented May 18, 2020

In python-fluent, we have comments in a few places that ask developers to sync dependency and automation configuration. Not that I read those comments last time I changed something ;-).

On a positive note, dependency information for node is machine readable, so one could check. I started thinking about moving the test deps into setup.cfg, but there's a yak in that rabbit hole.

I ended up not worrying about that too much, as the job names are pretty explicit about what they test. Could even make that expliciter by putting fluent.syntax==0.17.0 into the matrix value instead of just the version number.

@stasm stasm requested a review from Pike May 19, 2020 08:48
Copy link
Contributor

@Pike Pike left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think the badge URLs work. Should be https://github.com/projectfluent/fluent.js/workflows/@fluent/dom/badge.svg and friends. At least that's the URL I get from the workflows on your repo, and then substituting the stasm.

https://github.com/stasm/fluent.js/actions?query=workflow%3A%40fluent%2Fdom for reference.

@stasm
Copy link
Contributor Author

stasm commented May 19, 2020

Hmm, I used the workflow file path variant from https://help.github.com/en/actions/configuring-and-managing-workflows/configuring-a-workflow#example-using-a-workflow-file-path because the workflow names have funny characters in them. It looks like it doesn't work.

I'm surprised to see that I can just use / verbatim in the URL there. I'll change the paths to use names rather than paths.

@stasm stasm merged commit 8cd6880 into projectfluent:master May 19, 2020
@stasm stasm deleted the actions branch May 19, 2020 09:22
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

2 participants