Conversation
fingolfin
force-pushed
the
mh/ci
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0c68983 to
6d768eb
Compare
|
Thanks! This mostly LGTM but I would like to keep a test for 1.0 on Mac. |
|
Added Julia 1.0 test on macOS (via Rosetta emulation) |
|
Branch protection rules would have to be updated for this of course |
fingolfin
force-pushed
the
mh/ci
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c8a19ef to
3d99e8d
Compare
- latest TagBot.yml - use `julia-actions/cache` instead of `actions/cache` - test macOS on native ARM / aarch64 where applicable - avoid concurrent PR CI runs - drop obsolete `file` argument to `codecov/codecov-action`
.github/workflows/TagBot.yml
Outdated
| inputs: | ||
| lookback: | ||
| default: "3" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| inputs: | |
| lookback: | |
| default: "3" |
Lookback is already 3 by default, no? And IIUC this input will be unused because it isn't passed to the TagBot action.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, these three lines are about adding to the GutHub UI for manual workflow dispatch an input field that allows overriding the lookback value. That's helpful if TagBot ever again fails and you don't notice within 3 days
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And does TagBot actually have access to the value the user types in? It's not passed explicitly in the step that invokes TagBot.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes it has. This is how these workflow dispatch inputs work (and I used it like that several times yesterday and today, too)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would you be willing to share a link to the docs that describe this implicit argument passing behavior so I can understand it, too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would imagine this would be necessary: JuliaRegistries/TagBot#389
.github/workflows/TagBot.yml
Outdated
| # The following is commented out due to https://github.com/JuliaRegistries/TagBot/issues/388 | ||
| # permissions: | ||
| # actions: read | ||
| # checks: read | ||
| # contents: write | ||
| # deployments: read | ||
| # issues: read | ||
| # discussions: read | ||
| # packages: read | ||
| # pages: read | ||
| # pull-requests: read | ||
| # repository-projects: read | ||
| # security-events: read | ||
| # statuses: read |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO adding these commented out lines doesn't help much with clarity.
| # The following is commented out due to https://github.com/JuliaRegistries/TagBot/issues/388 | |
| # permissions: | |
| # actions: read | |
| # checks: read | |
| # contents: write | |
| # deployments: read | |
| # issues: read | |
| # discussions: read | |
| # packages: read | |
| # pages: read | |
| # pull-requests: read | |
| # repository-projects: read | |
| # security-events: read | |
| # statuses: read |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps not clarity but the next time someone wants to add these lines because the TagBot documentation says one should, they have a chance of knowing there may be a reason not to.
That's said, we can of course hope that TagBot will be fixed soon (one way or another) then this is moot.
i am fine with either way, choose whichever you prefer
2 participants
julia-actions/cacheinstead ofactions/cachefileargument tocodecov/codecov-actionI have also fixed
DOCUMENTER_KEY(the deploy key was missing). So for the next release, TagBot and documentation updates should work (again)