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

Issue #148 - add a basic github release workflow. #149

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Feb 3, 2022
Merged

Conversation

svogt0511
Copy link
Contributor

@svogt0511 svogt0511 commented Jan 28, 2022

Purpose

To use github actions for our workflows instead of Travis-CI.

Additional work here. Ruby must be updated.

closes: issue #148

Approach

Used lupo as a template.

Turned off rubocop for now. I will add a ticket for using it in the workflows. It has never been run on sashimi before. I did a test run and there were over 1000 issues, hundreds of which cannot be fixed automatically. Those that were fixed automatically broke the testing. (Added issue #150 )

Open Questions and Pre-Merge TODOs

Learning

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Reviewer, please remember our guidelines:

  • Be humble in the language and feedback you give, ask don't tell.
  • Consider using positive language as opposed to neutral when offering feedback. This is to avoid the negative bias that can occur with neutral language appearing negative.
  • Offer suggestions on how to improve code e.g. simplification or expanding clarity.
  • Ensure you give reasons for the changes you are proposing.

@svogt0511 svogt0511 changed the title Issue 148 Issue #148 - use github workflows instead of travisCI Jan 28, 2022
@svogt0511 svogt0511 changed the title Issue #148 - use github workflows instead of travisCI Issue #148 - add a basic github release workflow. Jan 28, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@richardhallett richardhallett left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good. You might get problems with the slack notification, I think this job we use is out of date and I've ended up disabling for now until we look at a replacement.

Copy link
Contributor

@jrhoads jrhoads left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good.

I would argue that there is a place for both testing on PR and testing on explicit workflow dispatch but given a choice PR is more important.

@svogt0511 svogt0511 closed this Feb 3, 2022
@svogt0511 svogt0511 reopened this Feb 3, 2022
@svogt0511 svogt0511 merged commit 9d67e5c into master Feb 3, 2022
@svogt0511 svogt0511 deleted the issue-148 branch February 3, 2022 13:38
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.

3 participants