Feature/npm publish

[sauravhiremath]

• Updated build.yml to support node

[rakshith-ravi]

We don't really need a matrix OS. That was for rust. For node, we can build it all on one OS.

Feel free to rewrite them as long as the basic structure is maintained

[rakshith-ravi]

If you're still working on this and don't want me to review it yet, make sure you mark your PR with WIP in the beginning.

[sauravhiremath]

If you're still working on this and don't want me to review it yet, make sure you mark your PR with WIP in the beginning.

Yeah, I sent to PR to npm-publish branch to check if its working. It wasn't a final push. But yeah i'll add a WIP next time

[rakshith-ravi]

Any update @sauravhiremath?

[sauravhiremath]

Any update @sauravhiremath?

Currently reading up on GitHub actions. Should be completed by tomorrow

[rakshith-ravi]

Is this ready for review?

[sauravhiremath]

Other than the asset uploading part, it is pretty much done. Took some time to understand the current build configs and gh-actions in general.

Based on our commit naming conventions I think it would be better if we go with semantic-release.

Has some really cool features out-of-the-box:

• Creates GitHub releases to mirror the versions published to npm and adds changelogs based on above conventions and adds them to the GitHub releases.
• Notifies contributors with comments in pull requests and resolved issues that a new version has been released.

Thoughts?

[rakshith-ravi]

We do follow semver, so adopting this wouldn't be an issue, but we already have a flow that's decided on the main juno repo. What advantages would this present over that?

[sauravhiremath]

I have already stated the advantages over the current one in the above comment.

…

On Fri, 1 May, 2020, 12:15 am Rakshith Ravi, ***@***.***> wrote: We do follow semver, so adopting this wouldn't be an issue, but we already have a flow that's decided on the main juno repo. What advantages would this present over that? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#8 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AG2QVW5OXY4X77PK5QHYZ6DRPHBMVANCNFSM4MS54RLA> .

[rakshith-ravi]

Yes, and neither of those are something that compelling enough for me to switch, or something that our existing flow doesn't provide already. I see no reason to switch

[thebongy]

Lgtm, we'll have to merge and test is this works properly on the other PR

[sauravhiremath]

Lgtm, we'll have to merge and test is this works properly on the other PR

I have tested it on my repo. So it shouldn't be a problem