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

Fixed .editorconfig and added validation to workflows #372

Draft
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Belonit
Copy link
Member

@Belonit Belonit commented Sep 14, 2022

We use this workflow at Phobos and it works well

@Belonit Belonit changed the title Fixes .editorconfig and adds validation to workflows Fixed .editorconfig and added validation to workflows Sep 14, 2022
@Rans4ckeR
Copy link
Contributor

FYI we are planning to merge below PR before all others, which will generate quite some conflicts I'm afraid.

@Metadorius
Copy link
Member

I think it would be beneficial if you reset your branch to pre-fix and then reapply all warning fixes.

@Belonit
Copy link
Member Author

Belonit commented Sep 19, 2022

@Metadorius Yes, I'll do it a little later

@Metadorius Metadorius marked this pull request as draft October 9, 2022 21:16
@Belonit Belonit marked this pull request as ready for review October 22, 2022 07:08
@Belonit
Copy link
Member Author

Belonit commented Oct 22, 2022

I updated this PR and consider it is done

@github-actions
Copy link

Nightly build for this pull request:

  • artifacts.zip
    This comment is automatic and is meant to allow guests to get latest automatic builds without registering. It is updated on every successful build.

Copy link
Member

@Metadorius Metadorius left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The council ™️ concluded that the style checks should absolutely NOT fail a workflow. Instead look into making a problem matcher and registering it so that it displays issues as inline annotations (same applies for Phobos one as it's quite annoying to get failed runs just because of a stray trailing space): https://github.com/actions/toolkit/blob/main/docs/problem-matchers.md

@Belonit
Copy link
Member Author

Belonit commented Nov 25, 2022

The council ™️ concluded that the style checks should absolutely NOT fail a workflow. Instead look into making a problem matcher and registering it so that it displays issues as inline annotations (same applies for Phobos one as it's quite annoying to get failed runs just because of a stray trailing space): https://github.com/actions/toolkit/blob/main/docs/problem-matchers.md

Currently, GitHub Actions limit the annotation count in a workflow run.

  • 10 warning annotations, 10 error annotations, and 10 notice annotations per step
  • 50 annotations per job (sum of annotations from all the steps)
  • 50 annotations per run (separate from the job annotations, these annotations aren’t created by users)

If your workflow may exceed these annotation counts, consider filtering of the log messages which the Problem Matcher is exposed to (e.g. by PR touched files, lines, or other).

@Belonit Belonit closed this Nov 25, 2022
@Metadorius
Copy link
Member

I think those counts are reasonable and we can work with that. Not sure why you closed the PR though?

@Belonit
Copy link
Member Author

Belonit commented Nov 25, 2022

I think those counts are reasonable and we can work with that. Not sure why you closed the PR though?

I'm not sure why it closed either. Possibly missclick

@Belonit Belonit reopened this Nov 25, 2022
@Metadorius Metadorius marked this pull request as draft November 29, 2022 21:05
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