editor/code: Break down CI steps to know what is failing easily#15281
editor/code: Break down CI steps to know what is failing easily#15281bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
Conversation
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
tetsuharuohzeki
force-pushed
the
split-ci-steps
branch
2 times, most recently
from
6576c40 to
f6b359b
Compare
|
@lnicola How do you think about this? I did not do same thing for Rust's CI job because their step has a dependency that affects to CI job performance. I would not like to touch them in this PR to avoid to make this PR more complex. |
|
To be honest, I'm not a fan of this. It's a bunch more complex, and I'm not sure it's worth it over a good comment or message printed in the workflow. |
|
Yeah, that's closer to what I meant. |
tetsuharuohzeki
force-pushed
the
split-ci-steps
branch
from
f6b359b to
19f6f50
Compare
|
Thanks. I updated my changeset. |
|
@tetsuharuohzeki thanks, did you see my comments on 19f6f50? |
Sorry, I missed it.
I think this alias (mom run type check) is useful when upgrading TypeScript to fix an error said by TypeScript compiler as just like |
tetsuharuohzeki
force-pushed
the
split-ci-steps
branch
from
19f6f50 to
6a97fc6
Compare
|
By this commit 6a97fc6 I break down CI step more |
| working-directory: ./editors/code | ||
| if: needs.changes.outputs.typescript == 'true' | ||
|
|
||
| # To fix this steps, please run `npm run format`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this twice? Once here...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ugh, that was my mistake. I pushed new patch.
.github/workflows/ci.yaml
Outdated
| run: xvfb-run npm test | ||
| working-directory: ./editors/code | ||
|
|
||
| # To fix this steps, please run `npm run format`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the same reason with above
To do this change, we reorganize npm-script. | previous | after | |--------------------|----------------------------------------| | `npm run lint` | `npm run lint && npm run format:check` | | `npm run fix` | `npm run lint:fix && npm run format` | The previous `npm run fix` sometimes does not complete fix automatically because ESLint's autofix doees not follow prettier's formatting. So we need to run `npm run lint:fix && npm run format` by this order.
tetsuharuohzeki
force-pushed
the
split-ci-steps
branch
from
6a97fc6 to
5cca093
Compare
|
@bors r+ |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
@lnicola Thank you for your review! |
4 participants
This do the thing I mentioned in #15265 (comment)
This aims to improve CI status check more readable.
I tried to use
jobs.<job_id>.ifto make the configurationmore shortly once.
But it could not fire the
end-successorend-failurestatus if some jobs in the workflow were skipped. This causes an integration problem with bors.By their reasons, this patch still uses
jobs.<job_id>.steps[*].if.To do this change, we reorganize npm-script.
npm run lintnpm run lint && npm run format:checknpm run fixnpm run lint:fix && npm run formatThe previous
npm run fixsometimes does not complete fix automatically because ESLint's autofix doees not follow prettier's formatting. So we need to runnpm run lint:fix && npm run formatby this order.