New Actions And Workflow for bumping version #136
New Actions And Workflow for bumping version #136yordanovsstoyan wants to merge 32 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
yordanovsstoyan
requested review from
MichaelKora and
yannick-roeder
as code owners
|
Could you add example documentation for setting up a repository that uses this workflow (e.g. contents of |
| - name: Bump version | ||
| id: bump-version | ||
| uses: bakdata/ci-templates/actions/bump-version@v1.21.2 | ||
| uses: bakdata/ci-templates/actions/bump-version@feat/new-bumpversion |
| - name: Commit and push changes including .bumpversion.cfg file | ||
| uses: bakdata/ci-templates/actions/commit-and-push@v1.6.0 | ||
| with: | ||
| ref: ${{ github.event.repository.default_branch }} | ||
| commit-message: "Bump version ${{ steps.bump-version.outputs.release-version }} → ${{ steps.bump-version-snapshot.outputs.release-version }}" | ||
| github-username: ${{ secrets.github-username }} | ||
| github-email: ${{ secrets.github-email }} | ||
| github-token: ${{ secrets.github-token }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We currently need 2x commit and push in this workflow, because we are creating the GitHub release in between, which is not ideal. As the docs of the softprops/action-gh-release action (which is part of our tag-and-release action above) mention, it would be more ideal if the GitHub release is actually created in the workflow running on the tag later with an if: startsWith(github.ref, 'refs/tags/') condition. This way we could avoid pushing and in turn triggering CI multiple times on the defualt branch.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I still think we shouldn't create the GitHub release in the CI running on the default branch
DerTiedemann
force-pushed
the
feat/new-bumpversion
branch
from
fe39d0c to
5eea497
Compare
|
@yannick-roeder regarding #136 (comment) (cant comment for some reason) |
DerTiedemann
force-pushed
the
feat/new-bumpversion
branch
from
8e89b0d to
892c704
Compare
| with: | ||
| ref: ${{ github.event.repository.default_branch }} | ||
| persist-credentials: false # required for pushing to protected branch later | ||
| persist-credentials: true # required for pushing to protected branch later |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why did this change? I think this would lead to the CI being logged in with default credentials and not with the bot user
| git add .bumpversion.cfg | ||
| git commit -m "Bump version ${{ steps.bump-version.outputs.old-version }} → ${{ steps.bump-version.outputs.release-version }}" | ||
| git fetch origin | ||
| git rebase --strategy-option=theirs origin/main |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is there a need for rebasing if we checked out right before?
| - name: Create changelog | ||
| id: build-changelog | ||
| uses: bakdata/ci-templates/actions/changelog-generate@1.35.0 | ||
| uses: bakdata/ci-templates/actions/changelog-generate@tiedemann/changelog-action |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you test the case where we also want to have the up to date snapshot in a file on the default branch and the tag?
| # config example .bumpversion.cfg: | ||
| # [bumpversion] | ||
| # current_version = 1.0.0 | ||
| # search = version: {current_version} | ||
| # replace = version: {new_version} | ||
| # parse = (?P<major>\d+)\.(?P<minor>\d+)\.(?P<patch>\d+)(-(?P<release>snapshot))? | ||
| # serialize = | ||
| # {major}.{minor}.{patch}-{release} | ||
| # {major}.{minor}.{patch} | ||
|
|
||
| # [bumpversion:part:release] | ||
| # first_value = snapshot | ||
| # optional_value = release | ||
| # values = | ||
| # snapshot | ||
| # release |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice that there is a comment here, ideally you can also put this in the docs
| # release: a.b.c-snapshot -> a.b.c | ||
| # release a.b.c -> crash | ||
| # major: a.b.c(-snapshot)? -> a+1.0.0-snapshot | ||
| # minor: a.b.c(-snapshot)? -> a.b+1.0-snapshot | ||
| # patch: a.b.c(-snapshot)? -> a.b.c+1-snapshot | ||
| # TLDR: release removes the snapshot suffix |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same as above, nice comments, but please also add it in the docs
4 participants
Fixes #90