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

GOV-29: Fixing NuGet publishing failing due to GitHub runners now having NuGet.org registered as a package source #324

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 9, 2024

Conversation

Piedone
Copy link
Member

@Piedone Piedone commented Feb 8, 2024

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 8, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes revolve around improving the NuGet package publishing process. Specifically, they introduce a check to prevent the duplication of NuGet.org package sources during the setup phase and refine the action's versioning strategy by specifying a particular version tag for the publishing action. This enhances the reliability and specificity of the workflow, ensuring that the setup is more precise and that the action used for publishing is explicitly defined.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
.github/actions/.../Add-SourceLinkPackage.ps1 Adds a check to ensure the NuGet.org package source is only registered if it doesn't already exist.
.github/workflows/publish-nuget.yml Updates the publishing action to use a version tagged as issue/GOV-29 instead of the dev version.

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
    • Generate unit-tests for this file.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit tests for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository from git and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit tests.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • The JSON schema for the configuration file is available here.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/coderabbit-overrides.v2.json

CodeRabbit Discord Community

Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.

@github-actions github-actions bot changed the title Fixing NuGet publishing failing due to GitHub runners now having NuGet.org registered as a package source GOV-29: Fixing NuGet publishing failing due to GitHub runners now having NuGet.org registered as a package source Feb 8, 2024
@Piedone
Copy link
Member Author

Piedone commented Feb 8, 2024

You might need this @Psichorex.

Comment on lines +1 to 14
# Register NuGet.org as a package source since GitHub runners don't necessarily have it by default.
$existingSource = Get-PackageSource -Name NuGet.org -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue

if (-not $existingSource)
{
Register-PackageSource -Name NuGet.org -Location https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json -ProviderName NuGet
}
else
{
Write-Output 'Package source for NuGet.org is already registered.'
}

# Get the latest version of the package.
$latestPackage = Find-Package -Name Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub -Source NuGet.org | Sort-Object Version -Descending | Select-Object -First 1
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot Feb 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [12-57]

The script efficiently finds the latest version of the Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub package and handles both solution and project files appropriately. The use of Get-ChildItem with -Recurse and filtering for solution and project files, followed by conditional logic to handle different scenarios, is well-implemented. The XML manipulation to add the PackageReference is correctly done using PowerShell's XML capabilities. However, consider adding error handling around external calls like dotnet sln list and XML file modifications to ensure the script gracefully handles any failures.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If any of these fail then we need the whole workflow fail, as it happens currently.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@Piedone, understood. Ensuring that the workflow fails on any error in the script is a robust approach to catch issues early and maintain the integrity of the publishing process. It's clear that the current script design intentionally lacks explicit error handling for this reason. Documenting this behavior within the script or the workflow documentation could be beneficial for clarity and to inform future contributors of this intentional design choice.

@dministro dministro added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 9, 2024
Merged via the queue into dev with commit 1372540 Feb 9, 2024
6 checks passed
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.

2 participants