Comments (13)
@alan-churley so it seems that my statement about Dependabot PRs was wrong and even though the results of checks didn't appear under the "Conversation" tab the the workflow still ran:
I think they didn't appear in the overview because I was looking at a closed PR, in the PR that was opened today (while still open)
A new PR #124 opened today had both on-push
and on-pull-request
workflows run.
If we want to avoid both running we could consider changing the on-push.yml
to something like:
on:
push:
branches-ignore:
- 'dependabot/**'
from aws-lambda-powertools-typescript.
The action used to setup node actions/setup-node@v2
recently released support for package caching but at this time it only works with package-lock.json
and not npm-shrinkwrap.json
which we are using.
There's an open issue on the action's repo saying that support for npm-shrinkwrap.json
should be released in the coming months.
When this will be released we'll be able to add a key like this:
- uses: actions/setup-node@v2
with:
node-version: '14'
cache: npm
Alternatively we could move back to package-lock.json
but not sure it's worth it.
@saragerion thoughts?
from aws-lambda-powertools-typescript.
I don't fully understand the ask here, the tests are already run against each PR automatically, and the results are shown on the PR page?
For example,
You can see here that the chore has passed all tests, and the feat:add tracer has not
If you go into the PR you can see more details, here the on-push-event runs all of our test suite
And if you click on details, in this example https://github.com/awslabs/aws-lambda-powertools-typescript/pull/107/checks?check_run_id=2973962167 you can see that this PR has for example failed linting
from aws-lambda-powertools-typescript.
Correct and apologies for not explaining it better, I was referring to PRs opened by Dependabot, like this one, that don't originate from a push
but from a pull_request
event.
It could be as simple as adding an event at after L3 of the current .workflows/on-push.yml
file or having a dedicated workflow only for PRs, which I am open for discussion.
from aws-lambda-powertools-typescript.
Ah I understand, thanks for explaining.
I think a separate workflow would be better personally, as we may want to do more on PR than on every push?
We will have to add some logic for dependabot PRs as they won't be able to push coverage reports for example, which we would still want for normal PRs. (https://github.blog/changelog/2021-02-19-github-actions-workflows-triggered-by-dependabot-prs-will-run-with-read-only-permissions/)
from aws-lambda-powertools-typescript.
⚠️ COMMENT VISIBILITY WARNING ⚠️
Comments on closed issues are hard for our team to see.
If you need more assistance, please either tag a team member or open a new issue that references this one.
If you wish to keep having a conversation with other community members under this issue feel free to do so.
from aws-lambda-powertools-typescript.
Personally I prefer having a separate on PR and on Push workflow, as it gives us more possibility going forward.
I think we need to fix the logic that prevents the On Push workflow running on PR as we currently stand as most of the logic is the same?
from aws-lambda-powertools-typescript.
Totally agree that they should be separate, and currently they are as one runs on: pull_request
while the other on: push
.
The problem is that my original assumption about Dependabot was wrong and what happens is that the bot pushes and opens the PR I rapid succession which causes the two workflows to run in the same batch/check.
I've been investigating but so far the easiest way to avoid this is to ignore all branches that start with dependabot/*
in the push workflow.
@alan-churley what do you think?
from aws-lambda-powertools-typescript.
from aws-lambda-powertools-typescript.
@dreamorosi what I am actually suggesting is that we don't want the On Push to run on any PRs, not just the Dependant, as they are essentially running the same tests
from aws-lambda-powertools-typescript.
@alan-churley I see and I misunderstood the way these events/workflow work. As you suggested in our conversation offline we need to look into it more & it's not the end of the world if both run.
We might also explore what the Python repo is doing and/or look into Mergify as Heitor suggests.
from aws-lambda-powertools-typescript.
Going to close this issue as CI for PRs has already been addressed, Dependabot's PR can be addressed with a separate issue at a later time.
from aws-lambda-powertools-typescript.
⚠️ COMMENT VISIBILITY WARNING ⚠️
Comments on closed issues are hard for our team to see.
If you need more assistance, please either tag a team member or open a new issue that references this one.
If you wish to keep having a conversation with other community members under this issue feel free to do so.
from aws-lambda-powertools-typescript.
Related Issues (20)
- Maintenance: improve e2e assertions on traces & idempotency HOT 3
- Maintenance: create own `LogGroup` resource in integration tests HOT 2
- Maintenance: remove unused & broken workflow HOT 2
- Feature request: Avoid flushing metrics when no metrics to flush HOT 7
- Maintenance: streamline tracer e2e tests HOT 2
- Docs: fix install & deploy instructions for CDK example app HOT 2
- Docs: fix spelling mistakes HOT 1
- Feature request: include original error cause when throwing `SetParameterError` HOT 2
- Maintenance: improve type hints when using log reordering feature HOT 2
- Maintenance: migrate test runner to vitest for commons package HOT 1
- Bug: powertools Logger Excessive memory usage with large messages and log rate HOT 8
- Maintenance: manually update transitive dependency HOT 2
- Maintenance: local documentation raises exception when run in docker HOT 5
- Bug: parser does not returned a JSON.parsed() body payload for each record but the type is correct (SQS) HOT 4
- Maintenance: migrate test runner to vitest for jmespath package HOT 1
- Feature request: (non-experimental-decorator) tracer.captureMethod HOT 3
- Feature request: Change powertools lambda context capture log key order HOT 2
- Feature request: infer `ParsedResult` types from inputs of parse function HOT 1
- Docs: Improve parameter descriptions in Idempotency `Advanced` table HOT 2
- Feature request: Option to setLogger for metrics as it is done with tracer HOT 3
Recommend Projects
-
React
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
-
Vue.js
🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
-
Typescript
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
-
TensorFlow
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
-
Django
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
-
Laravel
A PHP framework for web artisans
-
D3
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉
-
Recommend Topics
-
javascript
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
-
web
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
-
server
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
-
Machine learning
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
-
Visualization
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
-
Game
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
Recommend Org
-
Facebook
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
-
Microsoft
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
-
Google
Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
-
Alibaba
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
-
D3
Data-Driven Documents codes.
-
Tencent
China tencent open source team.
from aws-lambda-powertools-typescript.