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

Haskell CI via GitHub Actions #422

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

andreasabel
Copy link
Contributor

@andreasabel andreasabel commented Jan 17, 2021

Add GitHub Actions generated by haskell-ci.

This runs build/tests on github for all ghc versions in field tested-with. (Currently 8.0 - 8.10 latest minor versions.)
(Does not do any hpack-specific things, should there be any in the other CIs: travis, appveyor.)

Rationale: alternative to Travis CI.

This runs build/tests on github for all ghc versions in field
tested-with.  (Currently 8.0 - 8.10 latest minor versions.)
@andreasabel andreasabel changed the base branch from ci to master January 17, 2021 18:42
@andreasabel andreasabel changed the title Ci Haskell CI via GitHub Actions Jan 17, 2021
@andreasabel
Copy link
Contributor Author

andreasabel commented Jan 17, 2021

Breaks appveyor:

The file C:\projects\hpack\package.yaml requires version 0.34.3 of the Hpack package specification, however this version of stack only supports versions up to 0.31.2. Upgrading to the latest version of stack may resolve this issue.

Please activate "Actions" to get the new actions in this PR running.

On my account, actions succeed for ghc 8.8 and 8.10 but fail for ghc <= 8.6 because of the mismatch between installed Cabal version and Cabal version required by hpack. I filed haskell-CI/haskell-ci#468.
The quick workaround would be to disable these CI instances, only keeping 8.8 and 8.10, but maybe there is a better solution: fixing the script somehow or a fix of haskell-ci upstream.

Base automatically changed from master to main January 19, 2021 21:43
@sol
Copy link
Owner

sol commented Jan 19, 2021

@andreasabel Hey! Thanks for working on this! I have been looking into GitHub Actions myself lately. #423 is what I came up with + what use I across my repos. Specifically, I want the finally success job so that I can require it in a branch protection rule. This allows me to use GitHub's awesome new auto-merge (beta) feature.

@sol
Copy link
Owner

sol commented Jan 19, 2021

Closing in favor of #423.

@sol sol closed this Jan 19, 2021
, GHC == 8.6.5
, GHC == 8.4.4
, GHC == 8.2.2
, GHC == 8.0.2
extra-source-files:
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 think you should salvage this hunk from my PR.

@andreasabel
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fair enough. But I think you should add the tested-with from my PR to hpack.yaml.

andreasabel added a commit to andreasabel/hpack that referenced this pull request Jan 21, 2021
andreasabel added a commit to andreasabel/hpack that referenced this pull request Jan 21, 2021
UPDATE: revised Hackage badge to blue, salvaged GHA badge from sol#422
andreasabel added a commit to andreasabel/hpack that referenced this pull request Jan 21, 2021
UPDATE: revised Hackage badge to blue, salvaged GHA badge from sol#422

[ci skip]
andreasabel added a commit to andreasabel/hpack that referenced this pull request Jan 21, 2021
UPDATE: revised Hackage badge to blue, salvaged GHA badge from sol#422

[ci skip]
andreasabel added a commit to andreasabel/hpack that referenced this pull request Jan 21, 2021
UPDATE: revised Hackage badge to blue, salvaged GHA badge from sol#422
UPDATE 2: removed Travis badge

[ci skip]
sol pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 3, 2021
UPDATE: revised Hackage badge to blue, salvaged GHA badge from #422
UPDATE 2: removed Travis badge

[ci skip]
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.

2 participants