-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 251
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
Update @bugsnag/expo versions in the pipeline #1883
Conversation
Requires bugsnag/bugsnag-expo#91 for CI to pass |
# don't specify 'branch' here so we build the default branch in the expo | ||
# repo, which should be the most up-to-date @bugsnag/expo version |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My initial thought....
I can see the idea here, but when we have to specific the previous two branch versions specifically anyway, wouldn't it make more sense just to have v47-next here? The three steps are then consistent, easy to see what is being tested, and whether it's up-to-date. Ultimately, if it's not up-to-date then we still have to update the two other steps anyway. For me, removing the explicit branch name and adding a comment doesn't make it less likely to break, it's just more to read.
Then having thought about it for a few seconds...
Ok, I think does add something. When the default moves tov48-next
, we'll start testing it right away and it probably won't be too long before v45-next
gets deleted and we're prompted to update the pipeline.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, I think does add something. When the default moves tov48-next, we'll start testing it right away and it probably won't be too long before v45-next gets deleted and we're prompted to update the pipeline.
Yeah, that's exactly my thought — it's taken this long to update the other branches and we've had no testing of v47 from this repo in the meantime, so this covers us doing the same thing for v48
Having said that, Ben's updating the instructions for @bugsnag/expo to be more comprehensive in bugsnag/bugsnag-expo#90 so we're less likely to forget on the next release
I guess this is probably also automatable, if we used a script to generate this bit of the pipeline instead of a plain yaml file?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I image we could automate it - perhaps we consider doing that once the new branch naming convention (v47/next
etc) is fully in force (i.e. once Expo 49 comes out!).
This means we don't need to bump this manually every time (though we still should to make sure the other versions are up-to-date)
Goal
Updates the pipeline to trigger the default @bugsnag/expo branch, so it always runs against the latest version and dropped the v44 trigger as it's unsupported
I've updated the expo buildkite pipeline settings so that it (hopefully) shouldn't need to change again:
and set its default branch to
HEAD
, which should use the GitHub default branch: