-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.7k
validate and update vendor targets #3634
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
Conversation
Signed-off-by: CrazyMax <crazy-max@users.noreply.github.com>
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3634 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 56.33% 56.58% +0.24%
==========================================
Files 101 103 +2
Lines 7313 7520 +207
==========================================
+ Hits 4120 4255 +135
- Misses 2536 2596 +60
- Partials 657 669 +12
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| working-directory: ./src/github.com/distribution/distribution | ||
| run: | | ||
| DCO_VERBOSITY=-q script/validate/dco | ||
| GO111MODULE=on script/setup/install-dev-tools |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm wondering, do we still need GO111MODULE? 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes not necessary. In a follow-up we should remove the ci workflow and take a look at the DCO check but DCO bot might be enough?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I think the DCO bot should take care of that...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1 for remove GO111MODULE
| fail-fast: false | ||
| matrix: | ||
| target: | ||
| - validate-vendor |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does this somehow automagically trigger make validate-vendor?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes exactly. The idea in the follow-up is to add other validators to this matrix like lint, authors, etc... See https://github.com/docker/buildx/blob/a6a1a362ad951af488fc41388f41a2d52b25f791/.github/workflows/validate.yml#L23-L25
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh neat!
Signed-off-by: CrazyMax <crazy-max@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: CrazyMax <crazy-max@users.noreply.github.com>
wy65701436
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
follow-up #3315
discussed with @milosgajdos about cleaning up our workflows that are a bit redundant (like the
ci.ymlone).this pr adds targets to update and validate vendor:
like our build workflow, everything is sandboxed.
another target has been added to check for outdated dependencies: