Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Go: update
make
and CI to usebazel
#16398Go: update
make
and CI to usebazel
#16398Changes from 4 commits
bab2dd4
c123513
e71d038
bbdc275
5b1b30a
12c28f3
e359744
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It may be good to add a comment here noting that this explicitly does not run
make
(and therefore nobazel run :gen
) because we want generated files to be checked-in. This uses whatever is checked-in for the extractor pack and the later check then complains if the generated files aren't up-to-date.Related question: Might we want the "Check checked-in generated code" step to take place before "Build" to fail the build if the generated files are not up-to-date, rather than performing this step with whatever is checked-in?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hmm, yeah, it makes sense to do that I think, thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would it make sense to change the conditions to
inputs.run-code-checks == 'true' && always()
so that they run, even if a previous step failed? That way the checks would be performed, even if the build / a previous check fails and save us from potentially needing multiple CI runs / incremental fixes. (Would need to check that the proposed conditions work as intended, sincealways()
is sort of magical.)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good suggestion, but I guess that this shouldn't be required if we move this check up as you suggested
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it would probably still make sense to have for the "Check checked-in generated code" step, since it would be nice to run it even if "Check that all Go code is autoformatted" fails so that potentially two issues can become apparent from one CI run.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Indeed. As far as I know the correct magic github action incantation to get that is
!cancelled()
(as otherwisealways()
would run even when the workflow got cancelled, which is not ideal, and cancellation is forcibly done any way after a short timeout)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same as above
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yeah, this on the other hand might make sense to render independent... but maybe we could do that with a separate parallel job?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A separate parallel job would work, too. The downside to doing that may be that it requires the overhead of checking out the repo on a separate runner. It's a question of whether we care about that overhead or not. I have no strong opinion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I ended up keeping it here, as there was also the
go
setup being required, which I prefer having shared here with one place where the go version should be updated.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same as above