Support using sketches reports from local path #5
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
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #5 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage ? 100.00%
========================================
Files ? 2
Lines ? 700
Branches ? 0
========================================
Hits ? 700
Misses ? 0
Partials ? 0 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
@per1234 please resolve the conflict within README.md before merging. |
The test was triggering an intentional delay in a function, resulting in this test causing a signficant increase in the time required to run the unit tests. The solution was to simply fake time.sleep() so it no longer causes a delay.
…urce-name Preparation to use the input for specifying the source of sketches reports either in a workflow artifact or a local folder. The old input name is still supported but warning will be displayed in the build log to explain the name change.
The action was previously designed to only run from a scheduled workflow. The reason is that it needs a token with write permissions to comment on the PR, but due to security restrictions there is no way to have such a token when a workflow is triggered by a pull_request event from a fork. This is problematic for private repos because if the schedule is set to a short interval the action will use up the free GitHub actoins minutes allocation quickly (public repos have unlimited minutes). If the schedule is set to a long interval, then there is a long potential wait time for the report. A common work flow in private repos is for PRs to be submitted from branches, not forks, which makes it possible to trigger the action from the PR. Running from a pull request triggered workflow should actually work as the action was, but the method of finding the artifact is very inefficient and unintuitive in that context. Recently, GitHub added the ability for private repositories to allow write permissions for workflows triggered by pull requests, making it even more likely this method of using the action will be found useful: https://docs.github.com/en/github/administering-a-repository/disabling-or-limiting-github-actions-for-a-repository#enabling-workflows-for-private-repository-forks
…() into separate functions The addition of support for sourcing the sketches reports from a local path resulted in the function containing code for two completely separate usages of the script. Moving each flavor of code to a separate function improves readability, maintainability, and testability.
I decided the "-name" part of the input name was superfluous. This is part of a single PR, so no further backwards compatibility measures are necessary. I just don't feel like making the effort to fixup the previous name change commit and deal with all the conflicts while rebasing.
|
@aentinger I have now resolved the merge conflict. |
per1234
added
type: enhancement
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.
The action was previously designed to only run from a scheduled workflow. The reason is that it needs a token with write permissions to comment on the PR, but due to security restrictions there is no way to have such a token when a
workflow is triggered by a pull_request event from a fork.
This is problematic for private repos because if the schedule is set to a short interval the action will use up the free GitHub actoins minutes allocation quickly (public repos have unlimited minutes). If the schedule is set to a long
interval, then there is a long potential wait time for the report.
A common work flow in private repos is for PRs to be submitted from branches, not forks, which makes it possible to trigger the action from the PR.
Running from a pull request triggered workflow should actually work as the action was, but the method of finding the artifact is very inefficient and unintuitive in that context.
Recently, GitHub added the ability for private repositories to allow write permissions for workflows triggered by pull requests, making it even more likely this method of using the action will be found useful:
https://docs.github.com/en/github/administering-a-repository/disabling-or-limiting-github-actions-for-a-repository#enabling-workflows-for-private-repository-forks
Due to now supporting multiple sources of sketches reports, the input name
size-deltas-reports-artifact-namewas no longer appropriate (this input is now used for specifying the workflow artifact name when used in the traditional scheduled workflow method and for specifying the local folder name when using the new pull request triggered workflow method), so it has been renamedsketches-reports-source.The previous input name is still supported, but a warning will be displayed in the build log recommending switching to the new input name.
Demonstration of the action used in a pull request triggered workflow:
https://github.com/per1234/report-size-deltas/pull/1#issuecomment-691649959
This is using the exact workflow from the readme, except with the
arduino/report-size-deltas@mainaction name changed toper1234/report-size-deltas@local-report-supportso it can use the version of the action with the implementation of this proposal.