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

Update @bugsnag/expo versions in the pipeline #1883

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 8, 2022
Merged

Update @bugsnag/expo versions in the pipeline #1883

merged 3 commits into from
Dec 8, 2022

Conversation

imjoehaines
Copy link
Contributor

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:

image

and set its default branch to HEAD, which should use the GitHub default branch:

image

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 2, 2022

@bugsnag/browser bundle size diff

Minified Minfied + Gzipped
Before 43.19 kB 13.21 kB
After 43.19 kB 13.21 kB
± No change No change

code coverage diff

<temporarily disabled>

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 76f21d0

@imjoehaines
Copy link
Contributor Author

Requires bugsnag/bugsnag-expo#91 for CI to pass

Comment on lines +143 to +144
# 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
Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link
Contributor Author

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?

Copy link
Contributor

@twometresteve twometresteve Dec 5, 2022

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!).

Base automatically changed from remove-coverage-from-pr-bot to next December 6, 2022 15:45
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)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants