Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 22, 2021. It is now read-only.

👷 Feat: Replace Travis w/ GitHub Actions CI #912

Merged
merged 34 commits into from
Nov 26, 2020
Merged

👷 Feat: Replace Travis w/ GitHub Actions CI #912

merged 34 commits into from
Nov 26, 2020

Conversation

Jabster28
Copy link
Contributor

@Jabster28 Jabster28 commented Nov 24, 2020

For Synk to work, you may need to add SYNK_TOKEN as one of your secrets in the repo settings

Also, you might want to squash merge this instead of normal merging since there's a lot of commits with not-so-descriptive names (i was tired :P)

@GitSquared
Copy link
Owner

I think we're going to scrap Snyk altogether, its functionality has been mostly replaced when GitHub bought Dependabot and integrated CVE warnings in its core product...

@GitSquared GitSquared mentioned this pull request Nov 25, 2020
18 tasks
@GitSquared
Copy link
Owner

GitSquared commented Nov 25, 2020

Wishlist:

Thanks for contributing this, i'm going to see if I can improve the points above and then merge. ❤️

@Jabster28 Jabster28 changed the title 👷 Feat: Add GitHub Actions CI 👷 Feat: Replace Travis w/ GitHub Actions CI Nov 25, 2020
@Jabster28
Copy link
Contributor Author

Jabster28 commented Nov 25, 2020

Would you mind if I combine all of the workflow files into one and used matrix instead? It would make uploading artefacts a lot easier...

EDIT: No worries, found a better way to do it

@Jabster28
Copy link
Contributor Author

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this gh action makes a release and immediately publishes it, and it won't allow for multiple file uploads (i.e the only binaries in the release will be the first one to finish building). Is there any way we could use something built-in, like this?

@GitSquared
Copy link
Owner

Yeah, we could leverage electron-builder for this. Can we use the github token auto-generated for Actions or do I need to setup a custom one..?

@Jabster28
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm fairly sure that the auto-generated one will work, I'll do some tests in a minute and let you know

@Jabster28
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm getting a 403, which is (hopefully?) because I don't own the repository I forked (GitHub is weird with permissions on GH Action forks - see here), so it should work once merged since i'm using the default github token.

@Jabster28
Copy link
Contributor Author

Screenshot 2020-11-26 at 08 41 56

Should we remove all of these?

@GitSquared
Copy link
Owner

There's 370 mentions of snyk?? where?

Copy link
Owner

@GitSquared GitSquared left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Unless you want to add something, I'm ready to merge this!

@Jabster28
Copy link
Contributor Author

Nope, looks good to me!

@GitSquared GitSquared merged commit 087b9eb into GitSquared:master Nov 26, 2020
@GitSquared
Copy link
Owner

Thanks a lot for helping out with this!

eugene2candy pushed a commit to eugene2candy/edex-ui that referenced this pull request Apr 10, 2021
* Feat: add GH Actions

* forgot a sudo lol

* don't need to update

* upload dist once done

* rename to linux.yml

* rename name too

* add other platforms

* rename platforms

* fix windows maybe?

* spelled install wrong lol

* add code cov

* add snyk env

* fix env

* install npm

* delete snyk workflow

* don't install runtime dependencies before build script on win32

* win32 build script: respect README instructions

* Fix: fix travis cli for manos & linux (GitSquared#911)

* fix: cache npm

* better artifact naming attempt

* cache electron binaries used by electron-builder

* better AppImage artifact naming

* banish travis

* test which platforms need python

* add publishing code

* move it to the right place

* always publish new draft

* load token

* let electron-builder figure out whether to publish artifacts or not

* cleanup some Snyk stuff

* remove .snyk

* Make a unified Workflow with multiple platforms as Jobs

* remove individual os-specific workflows, use unified workflow instead

Co-authored-by: Gabriel Saillard <gabriel@saillard.dev>
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants