Pin NPM; Update Node.js #17
Conversation
achrinza
force-pushed
the
ci/pin-npm-update-nodejs
branch
from
d51bd6f to
1e1bb3c
Compare
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 1503304205Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.
Details
💛 - Coveralls |
see: loopbackio/cicd#6 Signed-off-by: Rifa Achrinza <25147899+achrinza@users.noreply.github.com>
see: loopbackio/cicd#2 see: loopbackio/cicd#4 Signed-off-by: Rifa Achrinza <25147899+achrinza@users.noreply.github.com>
achrinza
force-pushed
the
ci/pin-npm-update-nodejs
branch
from
1e1bb3c to
bdccecd
Compare
| only: master | ||
| language: node_js | ||
| before_install: npm install --global npm | ||
| before_install: | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@achrinza, since we're not relying on Travis CI anymore, perhaps we can remove this file. WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dhmlau We're no longer relying on Travis CI for x86, but we're leveraging it for other architectures (arm64, ppc64le, s390x). Since Node.js supports C++ add-ons, the portability of Node.js across architectures isn't as guaranteed. So I think we should keep Travis for the alternate archs.
I'm not sure if we need to test against all "supported" Node.js versions since we're already doing that with GH Actions Linux tests, so we could slim it down to just Active LTS (v16).
WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see. Then let's keep it then.
Last time I checked, we're running out of the OSS credits on Travis. I can look into requesting for more credits.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These alternate architectures don't incur credit for FOSS repos :-)
See: https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/billing-overview/#partner-queue-solution
Checklist
👉 Read and sign the CLA (Contributor License Agreement) 👈
npm testpasses on your machine