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

Change woody.error-reason missing message to be more readable #1

Merged
merged 40 commits into from
Jan 21, 2022

Conversation

kehitt
Copy link
Contributor

@kehitt kehitt commented Jan 14, 2022

No description provided.

@kehitt kehitt self-assigned this Jan 14, 2022
.github/workflows/code-checks.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/code-checks.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/code-checks.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/code-checks.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 18, 2022

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (master@6f818c5). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master       #1   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   84.97%           
=========================================
  Files             ?       24           
  Lines             ?     1524           
  Branches          ?        0           
=========================================
  Hits              ?     1295           
  Misses            ?      229           
  Partials          ?        0           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6f818c5...e10dfdd. Read the comment docs.

@kehitt kehitt requested a review from keynslug January 18, 2022 11:18
Copy link
Contributor

@keynslug keynslug left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💥

.github/workflows/erlang-library.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/erlang-library.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/erlang-library.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/erlang-library.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/erlang-library.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/erlang-library.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/erlang-library.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rebar.config Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@kehitt kehitt requested a review from keynslug January 19, 2022 11:11
uses: actions/cache@v2
with:
path: _build/*/lib
key: ${{ runner.os }}-otp-${{ env.OTP_VERSION }}-build-${{ hashFiles('**/rebar.lock') }}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Разве нам (здесь и далее) не достаточно hashFiles('rebar.lock')?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

А, и ещё, почему ты решил отказаться от restore-keys здесь? Как я понимаю, это не позволит нам:

  • переиспользовать кэш при бампе любой одной зависимости,
  • переиспользовать кэш с мастера.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

В целом попытался выбрать самый сейфовый путь из возможных, не раз уже приходилось чистить _build после обновления зависимостей/эрланга, чтобы все заработало так как нужно. В целом кажется что rebar.lock обновляется не в каждом пиаре, так что кеш с мастера все еще может быть полезен. Можно конечно и наоборот, кешировать самым широким образом, и потом чинить когда/если что-то сломается.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Можно конечно и наоборот, кешировать самым широким образом, и потом чинить когда/если что-то сломается.

Я вот тоже об этом подходе думал, мне он кажется рабочим, если это всё в reusable workflows уедет (видимо в https://github.com/valitydev/base-workflow).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Я бы разве что может не стал класть erlang и java workflows в один и тот же репозиторий, а то будет приходить реновейт на каждое обновление с нашей или с их стороны 🤔

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Вообще да. Ну либо трэкать moving tag типа v1.

.github/workflows/ci.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/ci.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/ci.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
elvis.config Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
elvis.config Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/ci.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/ci.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@kehitt kehitt merged commit 0c2e16d into master Jan 21, 2022
@kehitt kehitt deleted the IMPROVEMENTS-3/change_error_message branch January 21, 2022 12:11
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