4 ms·
I've used Github Actions at work for the past year and I'm a fan overall. The clearest sign of this is my feedback for improvement is almost entirely about mis
by ryan-duve 4y ago
I've used Github Actions at work for the past year and I'm a fan overall. The clearest sign of this is my feedback for improvement is almost entirely about missing features instead of broken ones. For examples, it'd be nice:
1. for Github to natively allow CI management for several repos in a centralized way, so repo setup can just be "select this CI config" instead of "copy this YAML file and change the project name in some places"
2. to mandate certain CI steps at the organization level (such as running `black`) so it isn't opt-in
- franky47 4y agoLooks like there is a solution for #1: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/reusing-workflows https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/reusing-w... I haven't tried it yet though.
- coredog64 4y agoIt’s still early days. You can’t use “act” locally if you have a reusable workflow. And what bit me was that you can’t pass environment variables from the caller. My workaround was to write them to a file and then cat the file into $GITHUB_ENV in the reusable workflow. However, that then exposed me to the up thread bug about files. So now I also have to delete the file before creating it. Sigh.
- jrochkind1 4y agoMe, I looove that the actions config has to be in a file in the repo, so I know where to find it, and if I have read access to the repo, I have access to the config. (Don't even need to be logged into a GH acct, although I usually am). If they allowed config to come from an internal setting not visible in repo, i'm sure repos I collaborate with would start using that feature, and I would not be able to find their Actions configs. (I work mostly on open source, which may lead to different patterns of access and such).
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]