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

chore: Reporting size of the jars in GitHub comments #1196

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Sep 27, 2023

Conversation

jeromevdl
Copy link
Contributor

Issue #, if available: #1102

Description of changes:

Display a report in GitHub comments about jars size. (Ideally would be great to have the history and see if it's growing)

Checklist

Breaking change checklist

RFC issue #:

  • Migration process documented
  • Implement warnings (if it can live side by side)

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jun 15, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (6a94862) 78.93% compared to head (2dd3222) 78.57%.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #1196      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     78.93%   78.57%   -0.36%     
+ Complexity      651      650       -1     
============================================
  Files            74       74              
  Lines          2506     2506              
  Branches        259      259              
============================================
- Hits           1978     1969       -9     
- Misses          446      455       +9     
  Partials         82       82              

see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@jeromevdl jeromevdl force-pushed the report-artifacts-size branch from 4525624 to 6f25393 Compare June 15, 2023 11:57
@aws-powertools aws-powertools deleted a comment from github-actions bot Jun 15, 2023
@aws-powertools aws-powertools deleted a comment from github-actions bot Jun 15, 2023
@aws-powertools aws-powertools deleted a comment from github-actions bot Jun 15, 2023
@aws-powertools aws-powertools deleted a comment from github-actions bot Jun 15, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jun 15, 2023

💾 Artifacts Size Report

Module Version Size (KB)
powertools-core 1.15.0 6.43
powertools-serialization 1.15.0 16.48
powertools-logging 1.15.0 38.26
powertools-tracing 1.15.0 12.61
powertools-sqs 1.15.0 26.51
powertools-metrics 1.15.0 13.82
powertools-parameters 1.15.0 34.76
powertools-validation 1.15.0 24.49
powertools-cloudformation 1.15.0 16.47
powertools-idempotency 1.15.0 43.12

@jeromevdl jeromevdl force-pushed the report-artifacts-size branch from 657795e to 50c01a6 Compare June 27, 2023 12:45
@jeromevdl jeromevdl self-assigned this Jul 10, 2023
@jeromevdl jeromevdl added the help wanted Extra attention is needed label Jul 17, 2023
@jeromevdl
Copy link
Contributor Author

Help: How can we compare with previous versions of each artifact? (ideally from maven central or any other way)

@scottgerring
Copy link
Contributor

scottgerring commented Jul 20, 2023

Hey @jeromevdl can we be of any help here?
Also thinking out loud - could we lean in on sonarqube and use it to track this over time too ?

@jeromevdl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@scottgerring Yes, for the moment I report the size of the built artifacts. Ideally I'd like to compare with the current release to see if it grows or not, but not sure how to achieve this...

@jeromevdl jeromevdl force-pushed the report-artifacts-size branch from 824e3aa to 17945c8 Compare August 1, 2023 18:29
@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Aug 1, 2023

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

@jeromevdl jeromevdl removed the help wanted Extra attention is needed label Aug 1, 2023
@jeromevdl jeromevdl marked this pull request as ready for review August 1, 2023 18:30
@jeromevdl
Copy link
Contributor Author

My idea for the comparison with previous versions:

  • During release, generate a json file containing the artifacts size that we push to S3 (public access allowed on the S3 file).
  • Then when there is a PR, we retrieve the json file to be able to compare.

We'll do that when refactoring the release process... We can already merge the report itself.

Ready for review!

@jeromevdl jeromevdl requested a review from scottgerring August 2, 2023 09:17
@scottgerring
Copy link
Contributor

Can we do this with sonar custom metrics?

@jeromevdl jeromevdl force-pushed the report-artifacts-size branch from 17945c8 to 2dd3222 Compare September 27, 2023 09:58
@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

@jeromevdl
Copy link
Contributor Author

Will push that initial version without comparison with previous versions.
Actually it would be great to have a report of the new dependencies added... or a dependency tree or something to see if add weight to the final asset the user will deploy.

@jeromevdl jeromevdl merged commit 24393d8 into main Sep 27, 2023
@jeromevdl jeromevdl deleted the report-artifacts-size branch September 27, 2023 10:13
jeromevdl added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2023
* reporting size of the jars in the github comments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants