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
[action] Generate update_code_signing_settings action instead of deprecated automatic_code_signing #15900
[action] Generate update_code_signing_settings action instead of deprecated automatic_code_signing #15900
Conversation
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.
@att55 👋 This is a very interesting change! I'm a little bit for but also a little bit against this 🤔 I do agree that this action should have a different name but I also don't want to just introduce another action/alias.
Aliases are nice (in this cases since some of the options conflict with the name of the action) but it makes things a little bit harder to maintain and harder to find other actions.
If we are going to do this, I would rather move the logic from AutomaticCodeSigning
into one that is better named and add a message saying that we are deprecating AutomaticCodeSigning
in the future.
The code_signing
name feels a bit too generic to me (I actually thought this PR was for something like sigh or cert at first). I think it would need to be something like update_code_signing_settings
Thoughts?
@joshdholtz Thank you so much for your review!
I think your plan is very good and |
@joshdholtz I adopted our plan in this PR 👍Please check when you can 🙏 The outline is below.
|
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.
Thanks SO much for making the changes I suggested 🥰 One more small change! If we could use UI.deprecated
instead of UI.important
that would be 💯
Co-Authored-By: Josh Holtz <josh@rokkincat.com> use ui.deprecated Co-Authored-By: Josh Holtz <josh@rokkincat.com> use ui.deprecated Co-Authored-By: Josh Holtz <josh@rokkincat.com> use ui.deprecated Co-Authored-By: Josh Holtz <josh@rokkincat.com> use ui.deprecated Co-Authored-By: Josh Holtz <josh@rokkincat.com> use ui.deprecated Co-Authored-By: Josh Holtz <josh@rokkincat.com> use ui.deprecated Co-Authored-By: Josh Holtz <josh@rokkincat.com> use ui.deprecated Co-Authored-By: Josh Holtz <josh@rokkincat.com> use ui.deprecated Co-Authored-By: Josh Holtz <josh@rokkincat.com> use ui.deprecated Co-Authored-By: Josh Holtz <josh@rokkincat.com> use ui.deprecated Co-Authored-By: Josh Holtz <josh@rokkincat.com> use ui.deprecated Co-Authored-By: Josh Holtz <josh@rokkincat.com> use ui.deprecated Co-Authored-By: Josh Holtz <josh@rokkincat.com> use ui.deprecated Co-Authored-By: Josh Holtz <josh@rokkincat.com> use ui.deprecated Co-Authored-By: Josh Holtz <josh@rokkincat.com> use ui.deprecated Co-Authored-By: Josh Holtz <josh@rokkincat.com>
All (the pull request submitter and all commit authors) CLAs are signed, but one or more commits were authored or co-authored by someone other than the pull request submitter. We need to confirm that all authors are ok with their commits being contributed to this project. Please have them confirm that by leaving a comment that contains only Note to project maintainer: There may be cases where the author cannot leave a comment, or the comment is not properly detected as consent. In those cases, you can manually confirm consent of the commit author(s), and set the ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
@googlebot I consent. |
I thought I've already consented CLAs... 🤔?? |
@joshdholtz Thank you so much for your review and requesting suggested changes to this PR! |
Sorry... I didn't understand how to pass "size-label" and "cla/google"... |
@joshdholtz Sorry to bother you... please check this PR when you can 🙏 |
Yo yo yo! Will check first thing tomorrow morning ❤️ |
Thank you so much ❤️ It's file, when you really have time 😸 |
@joshdholtz ( When you can... 👀🙏 ) |
Aye aye! Getting back to things first thing tomorrow morning 👌 |
@googlebot I consent. |
CLAs look good, thanks! ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
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.
Looks good to me! Thanks for making those changes 😊 Appreciate all your contributions ❤️
Hey @att55 👋 Thank you for your contribution to fastlane and congrats on getting this pull request merged 🎉 Please let us know if this change requires an immediate release by adding a comment here 👍 |
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.
Congratulations! 🎉 This was released as part of fastlane 2.144.0 🚀
Checklist
bundle exec rspec
from the root directory to see all new and existing tests passbundle exec rubocop -a
to ensure the code style is validMotivation and Context
automatic_code_signing
hasuse_automatic_signing
, the key switchesAuto
toManual
code signing. And the defaulut value isfalse
.https://docs.fastlane.tools/actions/automatic_code_signing/#automatic_code_signing
Sample code is as below.
But, I feel the specifications below are strange and confusing users.
automatic_code_signing
, the action allows to switchAuto
toManual
code signing.automatic_code_signing
,Manual
code signing is executed by default because the default value ofuse_automatic_signing
isfalse
.So, I added
code_signing
as alias ofautomatic_code_signing
to prevent confusing users.