-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
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
[$500] [HOLD for payment 2023-12-06] Local testing of GitHub Actions #13604
Comments
I'd like to have a look at this |
This issue has not been updated in over 15 days. @radoslawkrzemien eroding to Monthly issue. P.S. Is everyone reading this sure this is really a near-term priority? Be brave: if you disagree, go ahead and close it out. If someone disagrees, they'll reopen it, and if they don't: one less thing to do! |
Is this open for contribution from external contributors? If @radoslawkrzemien is not interested in working on this anymore, I'd like to work on this! I've worked with Github Actions before and here is a proposal that I made on another issue concerning github actions - #14088 (comment) |
Hi @Prince-Mendiratta , just wanted to confirm that I am indeed working on this issue 🙂 |
Updated the `.gitignore` file with the temporary folder created by the `Mock-github` package, in case the cleanup was not performed for any reason See: Expensify#13604
Added new packages, most importantly `Mock-github` for creating a local repository for testing (to have better control over which files are accessed by the locally run workflows) and `Act-js` for programatically triggering the workflows with Act (with features added on top of it, like mocking API calls, mocking steps, etc.) See: Expensify#13604
Added `jest` and `ts` config files in a new folder `workflow_tests` for the testing of GitHub Actions workflows See: Expensify#13604
Added the stub of the first proper test, with the more-or-less defined structure, but yet without proper step mocks and result assertions See: Expensify#13604
Updated the mocks/test repo files configuration to be more readable/maintainable. Also added `name` properties to `preDeploy` workflow steps, since using `name` is the easiest and most stable way of referencing the steps for mocking See: Expensify#13604
Updated the step mocks to allow for producing outputs that steer the further workflow execution. Also added run params to the act call See: Expensify#13604
Triggered auto assignment to @muttmuure ( |
Bug0 Triage Checklist (Main S/O)
|
@muttmuure not a bug, but we're ready for payment for two C+ reviews:
Thank you! |
@sobitneupane - $500 |
Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~016c26e8384c322e36 |
Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @ArekChr ( |
both should request payment in NewDot - the summary is above here |
Requested payment on newDot. |
$500 payment approved for @sobitneupane based on this comment. |
$500 payment approved for @rushatgabhane based on comment above. |
Problem
There is no easy way to locally test our GitHub Actions.
Why this is important
When we make changes to GitHub Actions, it's difficult to generate confidence that a PR will work and do what it is intended. This creates headaches:
Solution
Implement a local testing framework for GitHub Actions using https://github.com/nektos/act
Issue Owner
Current Issue Owner: @muttmuureUpwork Automation - Do Not Edit
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: