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
github: port CLA check to Github Actions #8429
Conversation
e06ec25
to
2058414
Compare
2058414
to
b7764d6
Compare
1ae8a85
to
901d1d1
Compare
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.
LGTM. Nitpick about merge check.
b84ffcc
to
f19df85
Compare
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.
Nice
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.
Nice work! :)
@jhenstridge should the CLA check be a separate workflow that runs separately of the remaining tests? This would allow us to restart CLA checks separately. |
This was suggested by @zyga, since it allows the job to be restarted independent of the other workflow.
Port the CLA check from Travis over to Github Actions.
I've removed the use of the
TRAVIS_COMMIT_RANGE
environment variable in the Python script: it turns out we can determine the new commits based on the synthetic merge commit we're asked to test (first parent is the destination branch head, second parent is the proposed branch head).This PR doesn't make the new job a prerequisite for the spread jobs, since that would prevent those jobs from running when it is skipped (or at least once the workflow is enabled for push events).
I've left the Travis CLA check job enabled for now, to allow comparison of the output.