-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
[CI] Composite action and os_name
#11
Conversation
I'm wondering if we need this workflow at all. The claim from https://github.com/ros-tooling/action-ros-lint is not relevant for us, because we don't use this as a pre-condition of the build jobs:
What is the benefit compared to the pre-commit format job? All four linter are already in the pre-commit config ros2_control_ci/.pre-commit-config.yaml Lines 102 to 110 in aa86661
ament_cmake ros2_control_ci/.pre-commit-config.yaml Lines 91 to 100 in aa86661
ament_cpplint ros2_control_ci/.pre-commit-config.yaml Lines 79 to 89 in aa86661
ament_cppcheck ros2_control_ci/.pre-commit-config.yaml Lines 69 to 77 in aa86661
|
Yes, we asked ourselves the same question a while back and switched to a pre-commit only linting. Note though that in the current configs the ament linters are run during the commit stage only (probably because of the mentioned duplication?) Removing the ros-lint workflow also makes maintaining things easier since now two lists of linters have to be updated and best kept in sync from my understanding? So: +1 for removint the ci-lint job. |
I don't know how to configure pre-commit, what does commit-stage mean in this context? The pre-commit workflow is called on PRs, this is all we want? |
In this sample: ros2_control_ci/.pre-commit-config.yaml Lines 102 to 110 in aa86661
So only checks that have the So, if we remove the ros-lint workflow we would have to update the pre-commit configs by removing that line (or extend it by the |
Ah, now I understand. This means that with the current setup, these 4 linters weren't called twice in the CI. (pre-commit output is rather verbose, I wasn't aware of that) I'd remove the |
os_name
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.
This looks good, thank you!
Add a reusable workflow for ros-lintos_name
input to ros-tooling (we should give the Tier 1 release for the respective distro)Both were tested with ros-controls/control_toolbox#187