Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update pathogen-repo-ci #90

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Jun 7, 2024
Merged

Update pathogen-repo-ci #90

merged 12 commits into from
Jun 7, 2024

Conversation

genehack
Copy link
Contributor

@genehack genehack commented May 31, 2024

Description of proposed changes

Adds "smarts" to pathogen-repo-ci.

Also switches it over to using the "modern" style for building Nextstrain runtimes, using a sidecar repo to ensure everything runs from the same commit in the nextstrain/.github repo.

Related issue(s)

#89 #63

Checklist

  • Checks pass

This should be handled within the build-config of the consuming repo
if it is required.
@genehack genehack force-pushed the update-ci-89 branch 28 times, most recently from 4f06c08 to fe768d3 Compare May 31, 2024 22:29
…per PR feedback

* ignore/don't warn when no files found
* include `auspcice` directory in upload set
* sort lines
…89]

* Pass `runtime` as an input, rather than accessing `matrix.runtime`
  directly
* Update action description to reflect dependency on having Nextstrain
  CLI already set up via other action; add warning about the purpose
  of this action
@genehack
Copy link
Contributor Author

genehack commented Jun 4, 2024

Okay, I think that I've addressed everything; ready for re-review.

@tsibley
Copy link
Member

tsibley commented Jun 4, 2024

I think the zika-tutuorial one can stay, because that's called test-pathogen-repo-ci-no-example-data, so everything being skipped seems to be the point under test.

Not quite. The point was to test that the (phylo) build ran even when example data was omitted (because it's optional before this PR). But because zika-tutorial doesn't follow the modern repo layout (i.e. phylogenetic/) nothing gets run at all.

@genehack
Copy link
Contributor Author

genehack commented Jun 5, 2024

I changed ebola back to zika and removed the TODO comment.

...and still nothing ran in zika because zika isn't actually fully compliant with the repo guide. Will update to seasonal-cov, which I know is.

ETA: actually, it's not yet because that work is unmerged and blocks on this work. sigh Gonna add nextstrain-pathogen.yaml to zika i guess...

@genehack
Copy link
Contributor Author

genehack commented Jun 5, 2024

I changed ebola back to zika and removed the TODO comment.

...and still nothing ran in zika because zika isn't actually fully compliant with the repo guide. Will update to seasonal-cov, which I know is.

ETA: actually, it's not yet because that work is unmerged and blocks on this work. sigh Gonna add nextstrain-pathogen.yaml to zika i guess...

...and it still didn't run because the config file isn't named as expected sigh

@genehack
Copy link
Contributor Author

genehack commented Jun 5, 2024

I changed ebola back to zika and removed the TODO comment.

...and still nothing ran in zika because zika isn't actually fully compliant with the repo guide. Will update to seasonal-cov, which I know is.
ETA: actually, it's not yet because that work is unmerged and blocks on this work. sigh Gonna add nextstrain-pathogen.yaml to zika i guess...

...and it still didn't run because the config file isn't named as expected sigh

okay, zika phylogenetic build runs in this repo's CI now.

@genehack genehack requested a review from joverlee521 June 5, 2024 23:48
* Update `artifact-name` description in `pathogen-repo-ci.yaml` to
  make it clear build directory will be appended to provided value,
  and to update default value to make clear these are CI results
* Pass `artifact-name` down into `run-nextstrain-ci-build` steps ni
  `pathogen-repo-ci` workflow
* Add `artifact-name` input to `run-nextstrain-ci-build` action and
  use it in `upload-artifact` action step
@genehack genehack requested a review from tsibley June 7, 2024 18:42
Copy link
Member

@tsibley tsibley left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good to merge, I think.

FWIW, the commits on this branch are of the "all the messy details and false starts" style instead of "tells a story" style. I have a strong preference for the latter, but I won't try to insist on it.

@genehack
Copy link
Contributor Author

genehack commented Jun 7, 2024

FWIW, the commits on this branch are of the "all the messy details and false starts" style instead of "tells a story" style.

To me, there is a story here — the story is, "here's what I originally thought would satisfy the rquirements, and here's all the stuff people told me in code review that I should change".

If you have specific things to point to and say (e.g.), "instead of adding this commit, I would have squashed it back here" or "I would combine all the PR feedback into a single commit at the end", or something like that, I'm happy to listen to that feedback and try to take it into account in the future — but I assure you, I am trying to tell a story with my branches, although perhaps more of a "lab notebook" version than a "journal article" recounting.

@genehack genehack merged commit 6e36ad3 into master Jun 7, 2024
40 checks passed
@genehack genehack deleted the update-ci-89 branch June 7, 2024 23:03
@tsibley
Copy link
Member

tsibley commented Jun 7, 2024

Got it. I didn't give specific feedback here because I didn't intend to insist on it. I'll try to give more specific feedback in the future.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants