Gitlab pipeline broken

[Nice3point]

As @peterhirn wrote #101 (comment), we need to decide whether to fix the build on gitlab or remove it altogether, leaving only github.

[jeremytammik]

I really like the CI set up by @peterhirn ; it also updates the build flag in the readme, doesn't it? Yes, it says 'failed' now. So that would be nice to fix. Personally, I just use my local build, so I am fine either way. I can imagine that many other users depend on it, though.

[peterhirn]

Pipeline output is public: https://gitlab.com/buildinformed-public/revitlookup/-/pipelines

Previous issue was (as pointed out by @Nice3point) the new solution name:

MSBUILD : error MSB1009: Project file does not exist.

Now it fails with:

Welcome to .NET Core 3.1!
---------------------
SDK Version: 3.1.302
----------------

...

CSC : error CS1617: Invalid option '9' for /langversion.

We could fix this by installing .net 5.

I think building the project in multiple pipelines makes no sense. Having everything in Github is the way to go.

I will disable Gitlab, add a "ARCHIVED" notice to https://lookupbuilds.com/ with a link to https://github.com/jeremytammik/RevitLookup/actions and instructions where to find the latest installer.

PR coming soon.

[jeremytammik]

okey-doke. that sounds fine. i trust your judgement. looking forward to the pr and things calming down again. can the build flag in the readme be set using the new approach as well?

[jeremytammik]

any advice you would like to provide on how to update the installation instructions is also appreciated :-).

https://github.com/jeremytammik/RevitLookup#installation

[Nice3point]

@jeremytammik

[Nice3point]

It would be more convenient for users to download the .msi file from releases. It can be added there by downloading it from github or generated on the local computer by running it in the nuke terminal And changing the approach to releases, release it only if there are changes to the plugin itself, and not to the code style and auxiliary files. Looking for an installer in GitActions is a little awkward, do you think?

[peterhirn]

I agree, forcing users to browse Actions output is not very nice and installers as release assets would make a lot more sense. I can't believe they didn't add a simple way to push pipeline artifacts to releases via actions, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the system.

I will look into this as soon as I have some spare time.

[Nice3point]

I think you can use this to automatically create a release https://github.com/marketplace/actions/create-release or https://github.com/marketplace/actions/automatic-releases or https://github.com/marketplace/actions/github-upload-release-artifacts

[jeremytammik]

can update badges style?

sure!

[jeremytammik]

i have no preference at all. i deal so little with these things that i cannot even tell that the 'current one looks outdated'. they all look nice to me, including the one you find outdated :-) i'm not very much into style and fads, more just pure functionality :-)

[jeremytammik]

shall we close this now? are you guys happy with the new state of things?

[Nice3point]

PR coming soon.

@peterhirn Any other changes you would like to make to the project now? Readme has been updated. If not, Issue can be closed

[peterhirn]

Nice, thank you. Issue can be closed.

I added a archived notice to lookupbuilds.com with a link to https://github.com/jeremytammik/RevitLookup#installation

[jeremytammik]

thank you both for documenting, checking and confirming.

ever so many thanks once again to @peterhirn for setting up lookupbuilds.com back in 2017 and maintaining it so diligently ever since:

https://thebuildingcoder.typepad.com/blog/2017/04/forgefader-ui-lookup-builds-purge-and-room-instances.html#3

very many thanks to @Nice3point for implementing the new streamlined system!