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

Identify a check by name within CI action #76

Open
boesing opened this issue Mar 3, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

Identify a check by name within CI action #76

boesing opened this issue Mar 3, 2022 · 3 comments
Labels
Enhancement Feature Request RFC Request for Comment; proposal for major new feature or changes.

Comments

@boesing
Copy link
Member

boesing commented Mar 3, 2022

Feature Request

Q A
New Feature yes
RFC yes
BC Break no

Summary

Hey there,

I am currently working on something and I have the following use-case:

  • run tests on all supported PHP versions (works out-of-the-box)
  • run tests on lowest PHP version with locked deps (works ootb)
  • run tests on lowest PHP version with locked deps via additional_checks (works ootb, but...)

So the latter does work due to prior changes made to this action. The problem is, that I now want to identify this exact additional_check somehow. Because the main idea of this check would be:

Run tests on lowest PHP version with locked deps but disable one or more PHP extensions (to see if tests are still passing due to precautions or polyfills) and/or disallow PHP functions.

So, I'd like to have some kind of optional name within the job configuration which can be used as some kind of unique identifier. When added, this can be extract within a pre-run.sh for example.
An alternative would be to actually allow disabling extensions via the job array. That would make the whole thing easier but maybe its worth having both "features" up and running.

WDYT?

@boesing boesing added Enhancement RFC Request for Comment; proposal for major new feature or changes. Feature Request labels Mar 3, 2022
@Ocramius
Copy link
Member

Ocramius commented Mar 3, 2022

Makes sense. Additionally, it would be a good occasion for shortening default names a bit (they all overflow GitHub 's UI)

@boesing
Copy link
Member Author

boesing commented Mar 3, 2022

Yah, but we have to be careful here as these names might be used with "exclude".

https://github.com/boesing/psalm-plugin-stringf/blob/586ae0569b3ef5bcef1035dd70d4778ce8a03bce/.laminas-ci.json#L13

Because thats the only way how you can exclude jobs as of now. But maybe this is only relevant for this action and not for the container action. 👍🏻

@boesing
Copy link
Member Author

boesing commented Mar 3, 2022

Oh, I actually found out that the checks do actually have a name. It is just not used anywhere:
https://github.com/laminas/laminas-ci-matrix-action#providing-specific-checks-to-run

I'll see if we can somehow pass these around while also slightly modifying the exclude logic so it can both exclude job names and job command strings.

boesing added a commit to boesing/laminas-ci-matrix-action that referenced this issue Mar 3, 2022
This feature is based on the feedback from @Ocramius in laminas#76 and provides better namings to github UI.
This will also prevent laminas#31 with its extended commands where we do check for linting before actually executing the command itself.

Signed-off-by: Maximilian Bösing <2189546+boesing@users.noreply.github.com>
@boesing boesing added this to the 1.12.0 milestone Jun 30, 2022
@boesing boesing linked a pull request Jun 30, 2022 that will close this issue
7 tasks
@boesing boesing mentioned this issue Jun 30, 2022
7 tasks
@boesing boesing removed a link to a pull request Jun 30, 2022
7 tasks
@boesing boesing removed this from the 1.12.0 milestone Jun 30, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Enhancement Feature Request RFC Request for Comment; proposal for major new feature or changes.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants