chore: Lint eco system error

[zrosenbauer]

Overview

Added annotations + summary output for the Linting GHA. See examples of outputs below:

• Success: https://github.com/zrosenbauer/example-annotations-for-fastify/pull/3
• Failure: https://github.com/zrosenbauer/example-annotations-for-fastify/pull/2

Summary Sample

Annotations Sample

Checklist

• run npm run test and npm run benchmark
• tests and/or benchmarks are included
• documentation is changed or added
• commit message and code follows the Developer's Certification of Origin
  and the Code of conduct

[zrosenbauer]

@Eomm working on #4275 & need CI to test, can you approve?

I also am not sure a comment is the best idea as its super noisy. Probably better to update the built output (it can take markdown) or annotate the codes (I can do that also I believe as I've done with Terraform repos).

[nooreldeensalah]

If you wish to test the workflow file locally, you can use https://github.com/nektos/act (But this might be irrelevant to #4265)

After installing it, you can run it using
act -W .\.github\workflows\lint-ecosystem-order.yml -s GITHUB_TOKEN=<github_access_token>

[Eomm]

I also am not sure a comment is the best idea as its super noisy. Probably better to update the built output (it can take markdown) or annotate the codes (I can do that also I believe as I've done with Terraform repos).

Users do not look at the CI output, so a comment (only for failures) or the code annotation would be great!

[zrosenbauer]

@Eomm if my code aint' broke this should work, and is there anyway to not have to re-run this (I've used act but just not the same, especially when leaving comments) 😄

[jsumners]

An annotation would be ideal. Bot comments can be really noisy.

[zrosenbauer]

@jsumners we can do annotations if you think thats the best route (I re-pushed with the comment version for now).

The issue with the bot comments is every push builds new one (maybe) dealt with on TF repos where each new tf plan was a new comments (45 comments later...)

[jsumners]

The issue with the bot comments is every push builds new one (maybe) dealt with on TF repos where each new tf plan was a new comments (45 comments later...)

I don't know what this means.

[zrosenbauer]

The issue with the bot comments is every push builds new one (maybe) dealt with on TF repos where each new tf plan was a new comments (45 comments later...)

I don't know what this means.

tl:dr I overshared... bot comments are super noisey. I'll switch to annotations if I can get some time this weekend.

The reason I know bot comments are noisey....

I experienced this first hand with an action I wrote for "terraform" aka every terraform plan output was appended to the PR. We had PRs with 40+ bot comments 😢 (I turned it off and had it triggered via a label).

[zrosenbauer]

@Eomm @jsumners updated and ready to go IMO, let me know if you need other changes / tweaks.

[Eomm]

The script lgtm

Not sure the about the changes on the GHA

[Eomm]

Whi this has been changed?

[zrosenbauer]

It wasn't clear on the intent, as the previous version should run on every branch push not named main / master which would mean it will run outside of a PR and 2x on a PR (push + pull_request). In the current version it only runs on PRs (which I believe is the desired state).

In addition, the script will only work on PRs. If we want to support PRs and not PRs, I need to tweak the script to run differently depending on the context & we should probably have 2 workflows.

I also wouldn't understand if its not running on main/master why we'd ever believe its not running on a PR....

[zrosenbauer]

@jsumners hey what was intent behind push and pull_request trigger?

[Eomm]

I think in past, che pull_request event was not triggered when new commits where pushed to the PR's branch.

Thanks for the clarification

I think it is good with this lighter setup

cc/ @Fdawgs

[Eomm]

I think in past, che pull_request event was not triggered when new commits where pushed to the PR's branch.

Thanks for the clarification

I think it is good with this lighter setup

cc/ @Fdawgs

[jsumners]

Looks good to me.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.