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

[No QA] Cache node modules in GitHub Actions #20436

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jun 8, 2023
Merged

Conversation

roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor

Details

This PR caches node_modules in our GitHub Actions CI according to the following logic:

  • if package-lock.json hasn't changed, and a cache is restored, skip installing node_modules because it's not necessary.
  • if package-lock.json has changed, or a cache is not restored, run npm ci
  • If a workflow has been manually retried and is not in its first attempt, no caching will occur.

Fixed Issues

$ #20433

Tests

This workflow was tested in Public-Test-Repo:

Offline tests

n/a

QA Steps

None.

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

  • I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
    • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
    • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
    • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
    • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
    • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
    • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
  • I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
    • Android / native
    • Android / Chrome
    • iOS / native
    • iOS / Safari
    • MacOS / Chrome / Safari
    • MacOS / Desktop
  • I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
  • I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
    • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
    • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
    • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
    • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
    • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
      • If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
    • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
    • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
    • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
    • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
  • If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
  • I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
  • I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
  • I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
  • I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
  • If a new component is created I verified that:
    • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
    • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
    • The file is named correctly
    • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
    • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
    • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
    • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
    • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
    • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
  • If any new file was added I verified that:
    • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
  • If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
    • A similar style doesn't already exist
    • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG))
  • If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
  • If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
  • If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
  • If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
  • If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
  • I have checked off every checkbox in the PR author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Web
Mobile Web - Chrome
Mobile Web - Safari
Desktop
iOS
Android

@roryabraham roryabraham requested a review from a team as a code owner June 8, 2023 02:46
@roryabraham roryabraham self-assigned this Jun 8, 2023
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from amyevans and rushatgabhane and removed request for a team June 8, 2023 02:47
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Jun 8, 2023

@rushatgabhane @amyevans One of you needs to copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

@roryabraham roryabraham removed the request for review from rushatgabhane June 8, 2023 02:47
@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

Opting to skip C+ review for this PR

@roryabraham roryabraham requested a review from AndrewGable June 8, 2023 02:47
- name: Install node packages
if: github.run_attempt != '1' || steps.cache-node-modules.outputs.cache-hit != 'true'
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note: I tried using fromJSON here, but it doesn't work because steps.cache-node-modules.outputs.cache-hit is either true or null, not true or false as the documentation suggests.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍 I see this matches the example in the docs here

uses: actions/cache@v3
with:
path: node_modules
key: ${{ runner.os }}-node-modules-${{ hashFiles('package-lock.json') }}
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note: no partial matches are allowed, because npm ci will delete node_modules if it's present. It's either a full match and npm ci is skipped entirely, or it's a cache miss and we run npm ci. We do not do npm i because it can change package-lock.json and is considered unsafe for CI environments

@roryabraham roryabraham mentioned this pull request Jun 8, 2023
57 tasks
amyevans
amyevans previously approved these changes Jun 8, 2023
- name: Install node packages
if: github.run_attempt != '1' || steps.cache-node-modules.outputs.cache-hit != 'true'
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍 I see this matches the example in the docs here

@amyevans
Copy link
Contributor

amyevans commented Jun 8, 2023

Reviewer Checklist

  • I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
  • I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
    • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
    • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
    • I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
    • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
  • I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
    • Android / native
    • Android / Chrome
    • iOS / native
    • iOS / Safari
    • MacOS / Chrome / Safari
    • MacOS / Desktop
  • If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
  • I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
    • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
    • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
    • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
    • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
    • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
    • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
    • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
    • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
  • If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
  • I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
  • I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
  • I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
  • If a new component is created I verified that:
    • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
    • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
    • The file is named correctly
    • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
    • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
    • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
    • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
    • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
    • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
  • If any new file was added I verified that:
    • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
  • If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
    • A similar style doesn't already exist
    • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG)
  • If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
  • If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
  • If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
  • If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
  • If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
  • I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Web

N/A

Mobile Web - Chrome

N/A

Mobile Web - Safari

N/A

Desktop

N/A

iOS

N/A

Android

N/A

@AndrewGable
Copy link
Contributor

Reading the docs: https://github.com/actions/setup-node#caching-global-packages-data

Makes me think it should be working by default, why is it not? We could maybe cache even more using cache-dependency-path but interested to hear why the built in isn't working

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yeah, the docs are confusing for sure. They say this:

The action has a built-in functionality for caching and restoring dependencies

But then soon after says this:

Note: The action does not cache node_modules


So I dug into it and discovered what they mean by setup-node having built-in caching... Check out the verbose logs from this workflow run. Basically setup-node caches the dependencies of npm and node itself, so it's not like you have to completely install whatever node version you're using from scratch every time you install node on a runner. A lot of the files are actually C files and binaries, and the cache is in .npm. It does not cache any the dependencies you define in your package.json. Those live in node_modules and have to be cached separately.

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

roryabraham commented Jun 8, 2023

Also, fwiw npm ci will first delete your node_modules before running an install of all your dependencies according to their exact version in the package-lock.json. So the examples shown in that documentation definitely do not cache node_modules.

@AndrewGable
Copy link
Contributor

Ok this is great to confirm we need it, just a few more questions:

  1. Caches are only stored per workflow run? (Not even sure this is the right term) Basically there is no way that two PRs can share the cache of mains node_modules?
  2. If yes, does cache-ing take much time? I would think we'd want to cache even if it's not the first run if there are changes to package.json later in the PR?
  3. Can we cache node_modules in desktop?

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

Some more info on what setup-node actually caches: https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v8/commands/npm-cache

For example, if you have a dependency you're installing, it may be stored in the npm cache such that it doesn't have to be downloaded over the internet.

The setup-node cache is basically the difference between running:

# With caching
rm -rf node_modules
npm i

and

# Without caching
rm -rf node_modules
npm cache clean –force
npm i

You can run those both locally and you'll see why the setup-node cache is helpful 🙂

But it still doesn't cache our actual node_modules directory.

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

Caches are only stored per workflow run? (Not even sure this is the right term) Basically there is no way that two PRs can share the cache of mains node_modules?

Where do you see that? Here's a workflow run I triggered about 20 minutes ago: https://github.com/Andrew-Test-Org/Public-Test-Repo/actions/runs/5213976292

And without changing the package-lock.json, I just triggered another: https://github.com/Andrew-Test-Org/Public-Test-Repo/actions/runs/5214138966/jobs/9410020020 and you can see that the cache was restores and we did not run npm ci.

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

Basically there is no way that two PRs can share the cache of mains node_modules?

Two PRs can share the cache of mains node_modules unless they updated package-lock.json. If a PR does update package-lock.json, then a new cache will be computed. If there are future commits pushed to that same PR without changing package-lock.json further, then the new cache computed when that PR was created will be used.

If yes, does cache-ing take much time? I would think we'd want to cache even if it's not the first run if there are changes to package.json later in the PR?

The only time the run_attempt will come into play is if a workflow is manually retried. Separate commits pushed to a PR will trigger separate workflow runs, where the run_attempt will start at 1 for each.

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can we cache node_modules in desktop?

Good question. I can look into this

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

Added caching for desktop node_modules. Also made it so that we run patch-package no matter what – new or changed patch files wouldn't have been caught by hashing package-lock.json. patch-package is generally really fast and we currently don't have a ton of patches so running it every time shouldn't be a problem.

@roryabraham roryabraham requested a review from AndrewGable June 8, 2023 22:02
@roryabraham roryabraham requested a review from amyevans June 8, 2023 22:02
@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

CPing to test the cocoapods caching change

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jun 8, 2023

⚠️ ⚠️ Heads up! This pull request has the CP Staging label ⚠️ ⚠️
If you applied the CP Staging label before the PR was merged, the PR will be be immediately deployed to staging even if the open StagingDeployCash deploy checklist is locked.
However if you applied the CP Staging after the PR was merged it's possible it won't be CP'ed automatically. If you need it to be CP'ed to staging, tag a member of @Expensify/mobile-deployers to CP it manually, otherwise you can wait for it to go out with the next deploy.

@roryabraham roryabraham merged commit 93a7a3d into main Jun 8, 2023
@roryabraham roryabraham deleted the Rory-CacheNodeModules branch June 8, 2023 22:20
@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

Some hiccups here, but was able to fix them in #20488 and we seem to be good-to-go here.

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 1.3.27-0 🚀

platform result
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 failure ❌
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 1.3.27-0 🚀

platform result
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/AndrewGable in version: 1.3.27-7 🚀

platform result
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 failure ❌
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅

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.

4 participants