Replies: 2 comments 2 replies
-
|
I agree with you! It's necessary to use dagger as our CI, if we don't do it, who will? Indeed, I have some questions :
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I finally got around to addressing in an issue (based on fantastic verbal feedback on Discord). See #1396 . |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
PROPOSAL: New CI structure for building, testing and releasing
Intro
Our current CICD code relies on the following components:
Problems
The current setup is not reproducible, self-contained or portable.
Here is a non-exhaustive list of problems:
Proposal
TL;DR: Implement all builds, tests and deploy from a single Dagger Plan.
Objectives
Main changes
#Batsper test suiteTiny POC
Snippet of a working configuration building the dagger binary and running a the simple test suite (the whole
./tests/cli.batssuite runs without issues):Notes:
Missing features
Although the simple example above works with the latest version of Dagger, we are missing several features in order to implement the full proposal.
In order of importance:
Output aalready implemented in Europadagger.#Artifactto the host filesystem (replacemaketo build the binary)The first item is open to discussion as several ideas where previously discussed.
The need is really to replace this kind of commands with a
dagger up:make && ./tests/node_modules/.bin/bats "./tests/<TESTFILE>.bats" -f "<TESTNAME>"make lintmakeBeta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions