Closed brendalf closed 2 months ago
Hi @pwntester. WDYT about this plan?
Hi @brendalf Thanks a lot for the PR. The plan sounds just right, but my guess is that glab
GraphQL endpoints are going to return object trees that are completely different from the gh
ones. That means that we are going to need a conversion function to make glab
responses processable by Octo. Not sure how difficult that is going to be or if its going to be even possible.
Great. So I will try implementing the glab respective methods before migrating gh calls to the new format. This way I can address your concern first.
At lot of things changed in my life and I was unable to proceed with the work, like becoming a father and moving to the Netherlands. Now that we have #530, I will close this one, but I happy to contribute to other features after one is merged (if that happens).
Describe what this PR does / why we need it
This MR adds support to Gitlab CLI.
Does this pull request fix one issue?
Fixes #282
Describe how you did it
This MR implements the support to Gitlab CI by moving the current calls to
gh.run
to a backend interface.The idea is that in the future we can add support to which cli we want by just adding a new
backend
that implements the same functions thatgh
currently does.By default, if the
backend
doesn't implement some action, a notification is triggered to warn the user.Describe how to verify it
Still WiP
Special notes for reviews
This MR is still WiP.
I'm opening it so we can start discussing the implementation plan.
Do you agree with the decision of adding the
backend
interface?Currently action plan:
gh
andgraphql
usage to backend functions insidebackend.gh
.backend.gh
functions tobackend.glab
.