chore: Split test and lint scripts #297
Conversation
To fix #111 I think it's good enough to split test and lint into two different build steps. Separate actions are not required since the github actions details view now shows what steps failed. To be able to do that split, I needed to drop the execution of the `lint` script from the `test` script. The `start` script still runs both in watch mode, so it's still easy to run both when developing.
|
@brodybits you are right, I dropped it, quite some reduction on devDependencies side |
| @@ -28,4 +28,6 @@ jobs: | |||
| uses: actions/setup-node@v2 | |||
| with: | |||
| node-version: ${{ matrix.node-version }} | |||
| - run: npm cit | |||
| - run: npm ci --no-audit | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
minor question: Can you quickly describe the motivation behind adding --no-audit here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes:
a) (Since we have tools to provide update PRs) nobody is looking at the audit output on CI
b) it saves time to not do it
|
@karfau it looks like this broke the Stryker run in master ... definitely not the first time we hit this kind of thing. I am wondering if using Stryker Jest runner, as I tried in PR #208, could help avoid this failure. I am thinking now if we could find a way to add another task to check that Stryker can do its initial run in the future PRs? |
Yes, also thought about this, but I couldn't find any documentation about such a "dryrun" mode yet. Update: I filed stryker-mutator/stryker-js#3088 |
by pointing it to the existing test script instead of the missing `test:jest` srcipt that has been removed in #297
To fix #111 I think it's good enough to split test and lint into two different build steps.
Separate actions are not required since the github actions details view now shows what steps failed.
To be able to do that split, I needed to drop the execution of the
lintscript from thetestscript. Thestartscript still runs both in watch mode, so it's still easy to run both when developing.