Adding cargo semver checks

[nicklan]

Adding a check that will run cargo semver-checks against each PR.

This implements a check for PRs that don't bump the crate version. The check will be run between the HEAD of the PR and main. So any changes introduced in the PR vs main that break semver are picked up, and the PR will be labeled with breaking-change.

Currently can't test the actual adding of a label because (probably) the check needs to be in the main repo, rather than in a PR branch, to be allowed to get write access to the repo.

So sadly to actually test this we'll need to merge and see if it works. (hooray github actions dev workflow)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 76.86%. Comparing base (86ffe02) to head (ed47177).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #369   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   76.86%   76.86%           
=======================================
  Files          47       47           
  Lines        9436     9436           
  Branches     9436     9436           
=======================================
  Hits         7253     7253           
  Misses       1789     1789           
  Partials      394      394           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[zachschuermann]

is this the last step of what we discussed in slack? namely:

• if bump minor version = fail this CI when semver checks fail
• if bump major version = job is just expected to fail? or not run?
• if no version change, job adds tag if fails (will it report success in UI in this case?)

[zachschuermann]

LGTM but curious if this job is red will it fail and add the label but stay red? can we get it to 'succeed' (when it fails semver) just so it doesn't look like CI is breaking for any breaking change?

[nicklan]

LGTM but curious if this job is red will it fail and add the label but stay red? can we get it to 'succeed' (when it fails semver) just so it doesn't look like CI is breaking for any breaking change?

The if: succeed() and if: failure(0 cases mean the job overall will succeed even if the check step fails

[zachschuermann]

LGTM but curious if this job is red will it fail and add the label but stay red? can we get it to 'succeed' (when it fails semver) just so it doesn't look like CI is breaking for any breaking change?

The if: succeed() and if: failure(0 cases mean the job overall will succeed even if the check step fails

Ah nice okay thanks!!

[OussamaSaoudi-db]

LGTM. Sanity checked this using act. It failed on a far away commit due to a pub api change, but succeeded when treating "pr.base.sha" as the previous commit.

[nicklan]

LGTM. Sanity checked this using act. It failed on a far away commit due to a pub api change, but succeeded when treating "pr.base.sha" as the previous commit.

Thanks for the link to act. I will use that in the future so I don't go quite so insane :)