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

Small improvements to CI #132

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Feb 7, 2025
Merged

Small improvements to CI #132

merged 5 commits into from
Feb 7, 2025

Conversation

DigitalBrains1
Copy link
Member

@DigitalBrains1 DigitalBrains1 commented Jan 28, 2025

I noticed a few points where CI could easily be improved a bit. See the individual commit messages for details.

I also bumped the Stack version in stack.yaml to the latest LTS.

@DigitalBrains1
Copy link
Member Author

This is for now based on the branch of PR #130 because that already made some changes to how we check Haddock. So PR #130 should be merged first.

@DigitalBrains1
Copy link
Member Author

The current CI failure is unrelated, but I'm not going to rerun it to spare the electrons. This PR will be rebased for certain, so it's not the final run anyway.

Comment on lines +10 to +11
s/__CHECK_HADDOCK__/$check_haddock/
s/__CLASH_VERSION__/$clash_version/"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I had no idea you could chain commands like this. Cool.

Base automatically changed from add-ghc910 to main February 7, 2025 08:58
We had two ways of setting -Werror: it was both in the `-fci` flag and
in cabal.project.local. This was redundant. Constraining the Clash
version can also be put in cabal.project.local.
The GitHub workflow file mentioned the master branch, but it's called
main. Fixing this means we once again run CI on pushes to main.
Only the Haddock for clash-protocols was checked for warnings, and
v2-sdist was only run for clash-protocols. The omission of
clash-protocols-base was probably an oversight when splitting the
package in two (#104).
This can drastically reduce CI running times when a PR is opened and it
initially fails CI, as it no longer needs to rebuild dependencies on
every new push.
@DigitalBrains1 DigitalBrains1 merged commit 7e11749 into main Feb 7, 2025
10 checks passed
@DigitalBrains1 DigitalBrains1 deleted the improve-ci branch February 7, 2025 09:21
on:
pull_request:
push:
branches: [master]
branches: [main]
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Soooo.... why did the pushes to main not trigger a CI run? :-S

@DigitalBrains1
Copy link
Member Author

This is why:

Invalid workflow file: .github/workflows/ci.yml#L11
The workflow is not valid. .github/workflows/ci.yml (Line: 11, Col: 10): Unexpected value ''

It tries to run for main as well, it just stumbles on the fact that github.head_ref is unset for pushes.

I'm opening a tiny PR.

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