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

Support arbitrary inputs to reusable workflow files #888

Conversation

h-haaks
Copy link
Contributor

@h-haaks h-haaks commented Apr 23, 2024

  1. step in Remove tight coupling to gha-puppet in gha workflow templates #887

Add possibility to use with as a key to .github/workflows/ci.yml and .github/workflows/release.yml in .sync.yml
i.e:

.github/workflows/ci.yml:
  with:
    rubocop: false

or

.github/workflows/release.yml:
  with:
    working-directory: 'my-special-dir'

<%- @configs['with'].each do |k,v| -%>
<%= k %>: <%= v %>
<%- end -%>
<%- end -%>
Copy link
Contributor Author

@h-haaks h-haaks Apr 23, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have tested this locally with
bundle exec msync update -f puppet-example --offline --noop where I made two local commits to the master branch of puppet-example.
1: added this to .sync.yml

.github/workflows/ci.yml:
  rubocop: false

2: updated .sync.yml

.github/workflows/ci.yml:
  with:
    rubocop: false

Seems to work as expected.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@h-haaks h-haaks Apr 23, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think it's possible to test this change any more on real modules as the changes to .sync.yml has to be merged to main/master for msync to pick it up.
If I added with key and merge it, msync will fail on that module until the PR is merged.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

remove the --noop --offline from the msync call and provide a PR for puppet-example? That's how we usually do it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hmm, as expected it doesn't change anything in the local modulesync branch so it's not pushed ...
The puppet-example doesn't even have .github/workflows/ci.yml in it's sync file.

Do you want me to change puppet-example so that I can generate a diff?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We often (ab)use puppet-example as our testing ground. Feel free to use that. Though with --offline (then --noop is redundant) it should take .sync.yml into account

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, I didn't commit my changes to .sync.yml in the local modulsync branch before rerun of msync ...

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

With --offline it shouldn't care about git and work purely local

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@h-haaks h-haaks force-pushed the support-arbitrary-inputs-to-reusable-workflow-files branch from a9de596 to f6e8bc4 Compare April 23, 2024 16:49
@h-haaks
Copy link
Contributor Author

h-haaks commented Apr 23, 2024

Rebased to sign my commit

@h-haaks
Copy link
Contributor Author

h-haaks commented Apr 24, 2024

@bastelfreak @ekohl anything else needed or is this ready to merge now?

@bastelfreak bastelfreak merged commit d18fde4 into voxpupuli:master Apr 24, 2024
4 checks passed
@h-haaks h-haaks deleted the support-arbitrary-inputs-to-reusable-workflow-files branch April 24, 2024 22:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants