added luarocks-tag-release job to release workflow action

gennaro-tedesco / nvim-possession

📌 the no-nonsense session manager

MIT License

215 stars 7 forks source link

added luarocks-tag-release job to release workflow action #19

Closed gennaro-tedesco closed 1 year ago

gennaro-tedesco commented 1 year ago

Good afternoon @mrcjkb, we spoke on reddit few days ago! This is an example of a plugin that uses a dependency, thus fulfilling the scope of creating luarocks dependencies spec.

Since this is the first time I am using your GitHub action, would you mind going over the change to make sure I have not forgotten anything needed?

mrcjkb commented 1 year ago

We will have to wait for https://github.com/ibhagwan/fzf-lua/pull/640 before this will work.

gennaro-tedesco commented 1 year ago

Have you added your LUAROCKS_API_KEY to this repo's GitHub actions secrets?

Yes, all is set, I would just need to create a new tag after merging and the action should trigger and push to the luarocks account :)

We will have to wait for https://github.com/ibhagwan/fzf-lua/pull/640 before this will work.

Awesome, thank you very much for your help!

mrcjkb commented 1 year ago

fzf-lua is now on luarocks :tada: So we can proceed with this PR.

gennaro-tedesco commented 1 year ago

I am manually testing the action by adding a worfklow_dispatch event (so that the action can be triggered manually), however it fails with

This GitHub workflow is designed to be run on tagged releases only

from this comment I take it should not be the case?

gennaro-tedesco commented 1 year ago

...after a few fixes...uh-uh, look at this beauty!

mrcjkb commented 1 year ago

Nice! :partying_face:

Some background information:

The untagged release workflow only works if you set the version explicitly.
The action tries to get the license info from GitHub, which is only possible if the license is on the main branch. So now that it's merged, it should be able to fetch it automatically.

One thing you might want to consider: fzf-lua is licensed under AGPL-3.0, which is a copyleft license (i.e. software that depends on it should be licensed under the same terms). I don't think an MIT license is compatible with that.