added github CI action and appveyor

[chcg]

Is it intended that the win32 build doesn't create a msix package?

[donho]

@chcg

Is it intended that the win32 build doesn't create a msix package?

Yes. Win32 build doesn't need MSIX package.

[donho]

@chcg I thought .github/workflows/CI_build.yml can replace appveyor.yml. Do we really need both systems?

[GurliGebis]

I would suggest only using github actions if possible

[chcg]

Updated PR:

• Removed appveyor
• no artifact upload for Win32

[donho]

@chcg

• no artifact upload for Win32

Does it mean x32 is not compiled by CI? If the answer is no, why can't we have Win32 to be compiled/verified? Otherwise never mind - once we have got all platforms are compiled/verified, it doesn't matter with or without artifact. Because the dll needs to be signed.

[GurliGebis]

I agree, skip creating artifacts and instead just build all three architectures

[chcg]

See https://github.com/chcg/nppShell/actions/runs/4536495216. Builds are done in Debug and Release for x64, Win32, arm64. Artifacts upload (aka storage as zip) is just an additional step after the build itself and currently done for the msi packages.

[GurliGebis]

@donho and @chcg I would to enable Treat warnings as errors - how do you feel about that?

[GurliGebis]

From a continuous integration point of view, it would be better to make sure the build fails on warnings, since they should not be ignored.

[GurliGebis]

I have created a PR that enables this 🙂

[GurliGebis]

@donho shouldn't we enable github actions to do CI on this repo?

[donho]

@GurliGebis Yes, we should. I didn't close it, and I cannot reopen it - I guess it's closed while I removed main branch (The repo is switched to master from main).

@chcg Could you please redo the PR on master?

[GurliGebis]

That makes sense 🙂