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

Fix releasing #2707

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 15, 2022
Merged

Fix releasing #2707

merged 3 commits into from
Feb 15, 2022

Conversation

hasufell
Copy link
Member

@hasufell hasufell commented Feb 12, 2022

Tested here: https://github.com/hasufell/haskell-language-server/releases


The idea here is that we pull the archives from the gitlab API instead of implementing pushing. That means a pipeline with the same tag as the release will have to have succeeded fully on gitlab CI.


Related: #2663

@hasufell hasufell marked this pull request as draft February 12, 2022 22:13
.github/workflows/build.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/build.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/build.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/build.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@hasufell hasufell force-pushed the gitlab-release-pull branch from b169764 to 5e77f31 Compare February 13, 2022 11:23
@hasufell hasufell marked this pull request as ready for review February 13, 2022 11:24
@hasufell
Copy link
Member Author

@jneira

@jneira
Copy link
Member

jneira commented Feb 14, 2022

sorry dont have time to review the pr, surely some other maintainer(s) could do it

@jneira jneira removed their request for review February 14, 2022 07:19
@Anton-Latukha
Copy link
Collaborator

Anton-Latukha commented Feb 14, 2022

Currently reviewed it 2 times (had 2 passes). Understood the subject matter & read through the code.

I am not adept in AWK language.

Honestly - to understand PR better structurally (where what how goes) & run inference inside - the third & maybe fourth passes are needed.

Of course that it is a single commit with a big Bourne shell diff. I understand - this particular subject matter may make separate commits difficult, but the form also becomes harder to review & internalize what was done precisely & the meaning of it. It is a long way of saying - to give a proper review - I need another pass. Seems pretty straightforward & understandable, though.

Seen that you've done testing during the work process.

I can review better & say/not say something more meaningful later in the day.

@hasufell hasufell requested a review from pepeiborra February 14, 2022 09:43
@hasufell
Copy link
Member Author

I am not adept in AWK language.

That's just some foo that I might remove later, because the job names on gitlab differ from the tarball names (and we need both for download via API). That can be equalized, but requires another round of gitlab CI, which I wanted to skip for testing.

Seems pretty straightforward & understandable, though.

Yeah, we just drop the static builds from github CI, pull all artifacts from gitlab and then upload them to the github release. We use this rather convoluted github script action, because the upload-release-asset action is deprecated and doesn't support wildcards.

@Anton-Latukha
Copy link
Collaborator

No. It is mine issue. I just as many was postponing learning AWK for years. At this time & level I probably need to know some AWK.

Yes, I understood that it is just reshuffling of fields, between probably job & the tarball names.

@Anton-Latukha
Copy link
Collaborator

We use this rather convoluted github script action, because the upload-release-asset action is deprecated and doesn't support wildcards.

Thank you for complete clarification.

As upload-release-asset action mentions was https://github.com/softprops/action-gh-release considered instead? It may be looked into after the PR merge.

@Anton-Latukha
Copy link
Collaborator

if [[ "${{ matrix.target-os }}" == "Windows" ]]; then
7z x "*.zip"
rm *.zip
set -eux
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh.

Thank you for setting the x here, great idea.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Anton-Latukha Anton-Latukha left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reviewed.

The situation & solution is understandable and straightforward.

Only had a couple of the most minimal improvements to the code, but the code is overall of high quality.

The use of the set -x in the shell script would help when some naming changes or API changes. I think for the prolonged shell parts it is a good idea to keep the x flag on (which it is currently).

With that https://github.com/hasufell/haskell-language-server/runs/5169934711?check_suite_focus=true works & artifacts are uploaded - I think passing my review is enough to mandate the merge.

@Anton-Latukha
Copy link
Collaborator

[skip circleci]

@Anton-Latukha Anton-Latukha added the merge me Label to trigger pull request merge label Feb 14, 2022
@Anton-Latukha
Copy link
Collaborator

Anton-Latukha commented Feb 14, 2022

@hasufell, should we report to evaluate use of https://github.com/softprops/action-gh-release later, or it was considered/does not implement the requirements.

@hasufell
Copy link
Member Author

@hasufell, should we report to evaluate use of https://github.com/softprops/action-gh-release later, or it was considered/does not implement the requirements.

Afaiu that action creates a release, which we don't want. We create a release and trigger a build instead. I don't think it's worth investigating that action.

@mergify mergify bot merged commit 34e9914 into haskell:master Feb 15, 2022
@Anton-Latukha
Copy link
Collaborator

Thank you @hasufell for this.

jneira added a commit to jneira/haskell-language-server that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merge me Label to trigger pull request merge
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants