search

ArdanaLabs / DanaSwapUI

Other
3 stars 3 forks source link

adding badges to readme.adoc #43

Closed DarthPJB closed 2 years ago

DarthPJB commented 2 years ago

This applies the addition of CI-integration badges to the readme file; allowing people to click links to reach Hercules and cachix

toastal commented 2 years ago

@DarthPJB Do these make sense to show if everything is built? Do we want separate CI badges for the separate front-ends why these are in a not-very-good monorepo?

DarthPJB commented 2 years ago

@DarthPJB Do these make sense to show if everything is built? Do we want separate CI badges for the separate front-ends why these are in a not-very-good monorepo?

I agree actually - however by my understanding CI-badges that show build state require some work from robert and @MatthewCroughan

I am however only following my requested task of implementing these badges - @nixinator is the man to talk to on this front.

toastal commented 2 years ago

Yeah. I understand... we've been back and forth several times on the status of this repo as a monorepo.

nixinator commented 2 years ago

Yeah, were gonna move some crtically linked repos to monorepos.

We are actually using hybrid repos; some are monorepos, some are standalone in their own right. So best of both worlds!

toastal commented 2 years ago

@nixinator It could be the worst of both in many cases though. I don't feel like in this project most bug filings are cross-project nor will most of the Git history need to cross projects. I feel like the only thing connecting these projects are the fact that they use Node/NPM and not much else. I think ideally the UI would fall under an umbrella org/project with separate repos inside of them as more rarely would issues and other project management tools ever need to be shared between them. GitHub's projects are just management tools and organization have a flat hierarchy so it's hard to tell what is related ... unless you create multiple orgs (like the PureScript community did). I think in the future we'll just start seeing tags like "[dashboard] Bug: Widget foo won't open" or commit messages like "landing: made heading bigger" creating ad-hoc, stringly-typed organization in this repo that will turn into a mess.

Rant: It would be nice if GitHub provided a better experience. If this were on Sourcehut say... I would start a UI "project" owned by the DanaSwap org (orgs haven't landed yet) with a unified project landing page for metadata and the project would contain multiple "sources" (Git repos in this case), separated "tickets" for the sources (issues), and a shared "mailing list". But I think GitHub, organizations have to have a flat hierarchy and no way to post to arbitrary data to the landing pages. Are CI status badges relevant to the README and the user being able to understand the how/what/why of the project, or are we bloating the README to make up for the poor landing page experience offered by GitHub? GitLab lets you attach badges to the project trough the repo settings where they automatically appear below the project title; Sourcehut allows you to POST arbitrary HTML to the landing page as needed.

DarthPJB commented 2 years ago

This kind of complex organisational issue is something I typically prefer to put deep thought into before code is even written; but i'm one of those weird-guys that knows how to make waterfall diagrams. I agree with github being flakey with these things, but development practices need to match their tooling framework - and it seems we are stuck with what we have for now.

These projects most definitely need more accurate compartmentalisation though - but the badges do look pretty, eh?

toastal commented 2 years ago

badges do look pretty, eh?

They look fine--it would just be nice if they weren't in the README, as it was eloquently put in Hacker News today: GitHub's README has become a RENDERME. And on this platform, we're not afforded an alternative place to put this sort of stuff. Tools should always be questioned, but what are you gonna do when the decisions are already made other than make as much as possible as portable as possible.

I need to follow up on if the repos should be split out though. It seemed we were in agreement that it should be until very recently, but I'll ask again.

DarthPJB commented 2 years ago

I agree about the issues with GitHub - but it's an adoption issue at this point; It's essentially the 'facebook of code'; I'd prefer some slick self-hosted solution, but that basically puts all the open-source work "outside the bubble". Though that doesn't really apply to this repo I don't think?

Regardless, I fully support splitting repositories, especially when done sweetly with the relevant sub-modules and segregation.

But I'm just the guy that puts badges into RENDERME files, so my opinion is meaningless. ;)