You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When someone opens a PR in the GitOps repo managed by CG, CG could run through every deploy it would do but with --no-execute-changeset and then post the JSON output of describe-changeset calls back to the originating PR. This would make the PRs incredibly reviewable, as you can see exactly the infra changes that would occur if merged.
I think this would require re-architecting the S3 side of things somehow. IIUC, there is presently a single bucket with a single state that triggers a deploy when changed. We would somehow need to synchronize the branch's version of things in a way that accurately triggers on what differs, but without actually persisting. If there's a less disruptively way to add this feature, do let me know.
This would also not work if you push a PR that has dependent changes across stacks -- though I don't think that's particularly well-supported even when actually executing the deploys today.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When someone opens a PR in the GitOps repo managed by CG, CG could run through every deploy it would do but with
--no-execute-changeset
and then post the JSON output ofdescribe-changeset
calls back to the originating PR. This would make the PRs incredibly reviewable, as you can see exactly the infra changes that would occur if merged.I think this would require re-architecting the S3 side of things somehow. IIUC, there is presently a single bucket with a single state that triggers a deploy when changed. We would somehow need to synchronize the branch's version of things in a way that accurately triggers on what differs, but without actually persisting. If there's a less disruptively way to add this feature, do let me know.
This would also not work if you push a PR that has dependent changes across stacks -- though I don't think that's particularly well-supported even when actually executing the deploys today.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: