Add ability to set multiple report paths in SonarQube actions #674
Conversation
actions/ci-sonarqube-ts/action.yml
Outdated
| id: sonarqube_report_paths | ||
| shell: bash | ||
| run: | | ||
| sonarqube_coverage_report_paths=$(find -type f -name '${{ inputs.typescript-lcov-report-path }}' -printf "%p,") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does this line do?
What is expected fromat for passing multiple paths in the input? Is it a string with newlines as delimiter?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it would be nice if you can document what is expected format of the input parameter in the input description
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It recursively looks for the file names specified in action input typescript-lcov-report-path (that corresponds to the report name) and assigns those values to this variable, used later by Sonar. It is tested here, you may find paths delimited by coma (%p, where p is a path/value found)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have updated the input variable names, so users may now specify only report names instead of paths (the latter will be found automatically). If users specify paths, the action will fail, as it will look for file names.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for explaining, so it assumes that all packages, modules in the project produce a report with the same file name? right?
It probably helps for some use cases, but for the other use cases the user of the workflow is not able to specify explicitly which exact report paths should be used. Can this be a problem for mono repos with variety of different frameworks and tools for generating such reports?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for asking.
modules in the project produce a report with the same file name? right?
Yes, that is how it should be and is in our repos.
The other use cases, the user of the workflow is not able to specify explicitly which exact report paths should be used?
- I do not know a use case that would not be solved with the logic proposed in the action. Give me an example if you know, please.
- I've attached a link with the example for monorepo above. Have you had a chance to take a look?
- There is no need to name files differently. Moreover, it may and will be our standard (though users may still use any custom names for reports and fetch those correspondingly). ATM, this action is report-paths-agnostic; it is only name-sensitive. Why?
- reports, when generated, are and may be uploaded by any path:
- name: Upload Golangci Lint artifacts
if: always()
uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4.4.3
with:
name: ${{ matrix.projects }}_golangci-lint-report
path: |
./${{ matrix.projects }}/golangci-lint-report.xml- when those are downloaded, the reports will be located under different dirrectiories/artifacts and will always be fetched by the same reg-exp-name.
- the reports are merged by Sonar
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As an option we may search starting with * (-name '*$...' in $(find -type f -name '*${{ inputs.test-report-name }}' -printf "%p,"), in that case files may be prefixed. However, I'd not recommend to go for this option, as such artifacts as race_coverage.txt may be fetched as well, however, it is not an appropriate artifact (at may cause timeout exception because of its size that may take GBs)
chudilka1
force-pushed
the
fix-sonarqube-action-2
branch
from
6689c39
to
55c466a
Compare
actions/ci-sonarqube-ts/action.yml
Outdated
| id: sonarqube_report_paths | ||
| shell: bash | ||
| run: | | ||
| sonarqube_coverage_report_paths=$(find -type f -name '${{ inputs.typescript-lcov-report-path }}' -printf "%p,") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for explaining, so it assumes that all packages, modules in the project produce a report with the same file name? right?
It probably helps for some use cases, but for the other use cases the user of the workflow is not able to specify explicitly which exact report paths should be used. Can this be a problem for mono repos with variety of different frameworks and tools for generating such reports?
chudilka1
force-pushed
the
fix-sonarqube-action-2
branch
from
55c466a
to
c0c6283
Compare
chudilka1
force-pushed
the
fix-sonarqube-action-2
branch
3 times, most recently
from
f20d314
to
c580fb6
Compare
chudilka1
force-pushed
the
fix-sonarqube-action-2
branch
from
c580fb6
to
f28ee1a
Compare
chudilka1
force-pushed
the
fix-sonarqube-action-2
branch
4 times, most recently
from
271fcc0
to
83e8170
Compare
chudilka1
force-pushed
the
fix-sonarqube-action-2
branch
from
83e8170
to
a9ea9da
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@scheibinger
I have added here the validation of conditions: when one of the workflow names is not specified, trigger the other action that downloads artifacts from the same workflow. When the workflow name that generates a report is not specified, it always means that the action is used by the same workflow that produces reports. How it works may be found in two different repos, that use different inputs:
- chainlink-common - different workflows generate reports and are fetched from different workflows
- capabilities (monorepo) - fetches different reports from different places, produced by the same workflow, where this action is specified.
No description provided.