Closed chriszs closed 2 years ago
Benefit of this is we catch build failures in the PR stage, like now.
Thank you for this -- excellent improvement.
My suggestion (take it or leave it!) is that it might be nice to actually have a separate "build" CI file that runs all the time and a "deploy" file that explicitly runs only on main (as the old version did) -- but maybe could use the build artifacts?
I think by having it as two separate tasks it's more explicit, and also would probably show as two separate pipeline steps which is kind of nice anyway. Thoughts? Worth the trouble? Is that even a possible thing in GH actions?
Yeah, I like that conceptually too. The issue, which Waldo has complained about, is that there seems to be no really good way to use the artifact from the build process in the deploy process, which means you use the non-good way, or you duplicate steps between the two workflows.
I don't think it's a huge big deal to duplicate them, btw, especially if we can cache the dependencies.
Ahhh yes it's coming back to me.
Yeah I guess let's just duplicate then -- the world probably won't burn as a direct result of the wasted effort...
Split.
Just to confirm -- is build failing because we have to merge in (a fixed version of) #97?
If so then once we merge that It'd be great to rebase this and merge it in.
@chriszs I think if you rebase on main this should pass now that 97 is merged (or if it fails we would have something we know we need to fix)
@slifty Passes.
Based on @louh's #97. Upgrades Node to 16.x in the GitHub Workflow, revises it to build on PRs, publish on merge to ~master~ main.