feat: check Actions and handle doc-only changes #469
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #469 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 82.59% 83.13% +0.54%
==========================================
Files 34 34
Lines 1660 1696 +36
==========================================
+ Hits 1371 1410 +39
+ Misses 289 286 -3
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Waiting for #468 before landing this. Also need to add testing for the new scenarions introduced and change name of some existing tests to reflect their current results. |
mmarchini
force-pushed
the
check-multiple-cis
branch
2 times, most recently
from
671b341
to
b014e26
Compare
mmarchini
force-pushed
the
check-multiple-cis
branch
from
b014e26
to
1efbc0e
Compare
|
cc @nodejs/node-core-utils |
| @@ -25,8 +25,8 @@ const CI_TYPE_ENUM = { | |||
| }; | |||
|
|
|||
| const CI_PROVIDERS = { | |||
| JENKINS: 'jenkins', | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what motivated the name change? i'm not sure it'd be clear to me what "nodejs" CI meant 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It doesn't test only jenkins anymore, so a new type made more sense. And since the only repo we use ncu and Jenkins is nodejs/node, I thought a provider specific for that repo made sense. Happy to hear other suggestions for names though.
An alternative I thought was accepting a list of providers, so for nodejs/node we would have ['jenkins', 'actions']. But that increases complexity.
Although now I realized that maybe libuv also uses ncu? They definitely generate metadata and have a similar landing process.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also FWIW, we stopped using ncu on llnode, which is what motivated me to have more than one provider here. We can probably get rid of this.
|
cc @nodejs/libuv do you use |
I don't. I'd like to, but never got around to trying to make it work. I don't believe others use it either, but I don't want to speak for them. |
|
I don't think In the past I have used |
I made it mostly work for llnode (had to send a few PRs here and use Node.js README, which is inaccurate for llnode), but lately I've been thinking it's better to keep this tool focused on |
|
cc @nodejs/node-core-utils |
Doc-only changes don't need a full Jenkins CI, instead we can check if the last Actions run was successful. Therefore this commit also adds check for Action runs. Jenkins CI messages were improved as well. Fix: nodejs#324 Fix: nodejs/node#32335 Fix: nodejs/node#29770
mmarchini
force-pushed
the
check-multiple-cis
branch
from
8896fda
to
2445dbf
Compare
Doc-only changes don't need a full Jenkins CI, instead we can check
if the last Actions run was successful. Therefore this commit also adds
check for Action runs. Jenkins CI messages were improved as well.
Fix: #324
Ref: nodejs/node#32335