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

chore: standardize repository for procore open-source #2

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 22, 2024

Conversation

jmeridth
Copy link
Contributor

@jmeridth jmeridth commented Feb 16, 2024

  • setup .github folder (actions, dependabot.yaml, ISSUE_TEMPLATES, PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md, CODEOWNERS)
    • add procore-oss/procore-rspec-profiling team to CODEOWNERS
  • setup required files (README.md, SECURITY.md, CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, LICENSE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md)
  • update gemspec file
  • setup postgres in tests in GitHub actions
    • test against postgres bookworm versions
  • add EMERITUS mentioning former upstream contributors
  • update LICENSE.md with previous owners
  • setup dummy rails app in specs folder

Next PRs after this:

  • up default ruby version
  • add Makefile and docker-compose for local dev to run rspec
  • possible better solution other than dummy rails app

Checklist:

  • I have updated the necessary documentation
  • I have signed off all my commits as required by DCO
  • My build is green

@jmeridth jmeridth self-assigned this Feb 16, 2024
@jmeridth jmeridth force-pushed the jm-oss-standardization branch 6 times, most recently from 6ca6040 to ed5ecf7 Compare February 17, 2024 03:28
@github-advanced-security
Copy link

This pull request sets up GitHub code scanning for this repository. Once the scans have completed and the checks have passed, the analysis results for this pull request branch will appear on this overview. Once you merge this pull request, the 'Security' tab will show more code scanning analysis results (for example, for the default branch). Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results. For more information about GitHub code scanning, check out the documentation.

@jmeridth jmeridth force-pushed the jm-oss-standardization branch 20 times, most recently from 712969e to 1b2dee8 Compare February 22, 2024 03:44
@jmeridth jmeridth marked this pull request as ready for review February 22, 2024 03:48
@jmeridth jmeridth requested a review from pc-bob February 22, 2024 03:49
.github/CODEOWNERS Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/test.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
SECURITY.md Show resolved Hide resolved
SECURITY.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rspec_profiling.gemspec Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
spec/dummy/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
- [x] setup .github folder (actions, dependabot.yaml, ISSUE_TEMPLATES, PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md, CODEOWNERS)
  - [x] add procore-oss/procore-rspec-profiling team to CODEOWNERS
- [x] setup required files (README.md, SECURITY.md, CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, LICENSE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md)
- [x] update gemspec file
- [x] setup postgres in tests in GitHub actions
  - [x] test against postgres bookworm versions
- [x] add EMERITUS mentioning former upstream contributors
- [x] update LICENSE.md with previous owners
- [x] setup dummy rails app in specs folder

Signed-off-by: jmeridth <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Steven Johnson <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Bob Laskowski <[email protected]>
@pc-bob
Copy link
Contributor

pc-bob commented Feb 22, 2024

should we update the ruby-version file to update the default version of ruby used for the project now that we're testing against more modern versions?

@jmeridth
Copy link
Contributor Author

@pc-bob yes, after this merges IMO. Updating description with further PR changes after this merges.

@jmeridth jmeridth merged commit 23577cb into main Feb 22, 2024
28 checks passed
@jmeridth jmeridth deleted the jm-oss-standardization branch February 22, 2024 17:56
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