build: improved CI and cleanup #254
Conversation
berendsliedrecht
force-pushed
the
build/improve-ci
branch
3 times, most recently
from
acd0970
to
7d9309f
Compare
Codecov Report
|
berendsliedrecht
force-pushed
the
build/improve-ci
branch
from
7d9309f
to
9f9cfcc
Compare
berendsliedrecht
force-pushed
the
build/improve-ci
branch
from
9f9cfcc
to
e28b82b
Compare
berendsliedrecht
requested review from
morrieinmaas
and removed request for
morrieinmaas
Signed-off-by: blu3beri <[email protected]>
berendsliedrecht
force-pushed
the
build/improve-ci
branch
from
e28b82b
to
7c2e6cc
Compare
| uses: Swatinem/rust-cache@v2 | ||
| with: | ||
| shared-key: deps | ||
| cache-on-failure: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why cahce the failed resources?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mainly taken this from a rust CI under Hyperlegder, but if we fetch 80% of deps and fail we still whould like to cache 80% of the deps. I actually will check later on if caching is setup properly inside the CI though.
| uses: Swatinem/rust-cache@v2 | ||
| with: | ||
| shared-key: deps | ||
| cache-on-failure: true |
| uses: codecov/codecov-action@v3 | ||
| with: | ||
| token: ${{ secrets.CODECOV_TOKEN }} | ||
| fail_ci_if_error: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
interesting that this doesn't fail w/o this flag provided
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Uploading coverage can fail if their site or anything is down which might make it annoying. I would like to be strict here and only pass if everything works. Not opposed to removing it though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, I see your reasoning. I meant more as in I would've thought initially that if error occurs it fail w/o having to explicitly set this
| @@ -29,6 +29,6 @@ pub async fn parse_basic_message_args( | |||
| }; | |||
| agent.send_message(send_options).await.map(|_| { | |||
| loader.stop(); | |||
| log!("Successfully sent message") | |||
| log!("Successfully sent message"); | |||
Signed-off-by: blu3beri [email protected]