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

[To Do] Use CI instead of TravisCI in our script and documentation #2435

Closed
benoittgt opened this issue Dec 28, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

[To Do] Use CI instead of TravisCI in our script and documentation #2435

benoittgt opened this issue Dec 28, 2020 · 4 comments

Comments

@benoittgt
Copy link
Member

Migration to Github Actions is not completely done but we still have lot's of mentions of TravisCI. https://github.com/rspec/rspec-rails/search?q=travis

Some work has been done on rspec-dev. We should follow the work done on other repo.

@JonRowe
Copy link
Member

JonRowe commented Dec 29, 2020

The markdown files in dev use a generator style to allow injecting project names, we could expand that to allow it to generate the rspec-rails docs and bring the common sections inline with the other projects which would help, we could also look at using the style of ignores I build for those files for ci builts, allowing us to sync the function files but not the workflow itself?

@Maroo-b
Copy link
Contributor

Maroo-b commented Mar 27, 2021

Hi @benoittgt , do we need to just rename "travis" -> "ci" in this case?

@benoittgt
Copy link
Member Author

@Maroo-b yes at first. Then we could look at the @JonRowe 's proposal. This is probably need more some work with how much rspec-rails is unsync from other RSpec repos.

Maroo-b added a commit to Maroo-b/rspec-rails that referenced this issue Mar 29, 2021
Maroo-b added a commit to Maroo-b/rspec-rails that referenced this issue Mar 30, 2021
Maroo-b added a commit to Maroo-b/rspec-rails that referenced this issue Mar 30, 2021
@benoittgt
Copy link
Member Author

Closed by #2489

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants