Ensure CI workflow passes #30
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Closed
For a long time, GOV.UK had a convention whereby repositories had to specify a status check called 'test', which should be the name of the CI job that runs a repo's tests, linter, and so on. These would all run under the 'test' job, usually via something like `bundle exec rake`. In January 2023, a [new convention](alphagov/content-data-admin@89a888b) was established, whereby there would now be an overall workflow called 'CI'. Within this workflow, there would be several individual jobs, each with their own responsibility (e.g. 'test-ruby' for running tests, 'lint-ruby' for running the linter, and so on). We should therefore no longer look for a 'test' job: the modern equivalent is to check for the 'CI' workflow, and to validate that every job within the CI workflow passes. Note that as a [stopgap](#21), we temporarily stopped looking for a 'test' job and switched to looking for a 'test-ruby' job instead. This is suboptimal as it only checks for the outcome of the unit tests, and doesn't consider other checks such as the linter, so it will incorrectly [try and fail to approve and merge](alphagov/support-api#870 (review)) PRs whose unit tests pass but where there is another check failing.
ChrisBAshton
force-pushed
the
ensure-ci-workflow-passes
branch
from
c59f288 to
9296156
Compare
AgaDufrat
approved these changes
Dec 27, 2023
MuriloDalRi
reviewed
Dec 27, 2023
|
|
||
| private | ||
|
|
||
| def ci_workflow_run_id |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to return twice in this method?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It can probably be tidied up 👍 will consider a small refactor PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No worries, just a nitpick! Maybe something like this would work:
return @ci_workflow_run_id if @ci_workflow_run_id
...
@ci_workflow_run_id = ci_workflow["id"] if ci_workflow
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
For a long time, GOV.UK had a convention whereby repositories had to specify a status check called 'test', which should be the name of the CI job that runs a repo's tests, linter, and so on. These would all run under the 'test' job, usually via something like
bundle exec rake.In January 2023, a new convention was established, whereby there would now be an overall workflow called 'CI'. Within this workflow, there would be several individual jobs, each with their own responsibility (e.g. 'test-ruby' for running tests, 'lint-ruby' for running the linter, and so on).
We should therefore no longer look for a 'test' job: the modern equivalent is to check for the 'CI' workflow, and to validate that every job within the CI workflow passes.
Note that as a stopgap, we temporarily stopped looking for a 'test' job and switched to looking for a 'test-ruby' job instead. This is suboptimal as it only checks for the outcome of the unit tests, and doesn't consider other checks such as the linter, so it will incorrectly try and fail to approve and merge PRs whose unit tests pass but where there is another check failing.