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

ci: update ci workflow into separate jobs, add type-check job #221

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 29, 2023

Conversation

joshblack
Copy link
Member

Update the CI workflow to include dedicated jobs for linting, testing, and type-checking. This will make it easier to see what stage fails in CI and will run jobs in parallel instead of in series for faster execution time.

@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Sep 25, 2023

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: bcc0519

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

@joshblack joshblack added the skip changeset Skip the check for changesets label Sep 25, 2023
@joshblack joshblack marked this pull request as ready for review September 25, 2023 22:11
@joshblack joshblack requested review from a team and broccolinisoup September 25, 2023 22:11
Copy link
Member

@broccolinisoup broccolinisoup left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks good to me! I have one comment and certainly not a blocker but very curious to hear your thoughts!

I watched a DOL talk the other day (Sustainable DevOps) and in the talk the presenter was talking about how we can be more mindful of parallelizing the jobs as each job runs async in separate servers therefore uses more energy. In our case it makes so much sense to take them into separate jobs for visibility of the failings and also these jobs don't really require heavily computational effort anyway so I think it makes sense but just wanted to comment and see what your thoughts are on this 😊

@joshblack
Copy link
Member Author

@broccolinisoup great points, I'm honestly not sure. My hope would be that the scale here (~3 jobs) would be okay compared to techniques like using the matrix strategy which can generate a lot of jobs (e.g. 100s) but this is totally an assumption on my end.

@broccolinisoup
Copy link
Member

My hope would be that the scale here (~3 jobs) would be okay compared to techniques like using the matrix strategy which can generate a lot of jobs (e.g. 100s) but this is totally an assumption on my end.

That is a great take. If I learn more about it, I'll share but for now it was just an awareness and I am glad we chatted about it 🤗

@joshblack joshblack merged commit a3c0ce6 into main Sep 29, 2023
7 of 8 checks passed
@joshblack joshblack deleted the ci/update-ci-jobs branch September 29, 2023 15:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
skip changeset Skip the check for changesets
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants