-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 108
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
GH-325: [Website] Update website deployment script to use latest LTS version of Node.js and Webpack 5.75.0 #326
Merged
Merged
Changes from 13 commits
Commits
Show all changes
15 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a1dfe9b
Run website deployment workflow inside of an ubuntu:latest container.
kevingurney 650e625
Use v3 of actions/checkout.
kevingurney 1bd48be
Use ubuntu:22.04, rather than ubuntu:latest as the container image.
kevingurney 16c8a11
Update name of workflow step that calls `apt-get update` to update th…
kevingurney a842667
Use `v3` of `actions/setup-node`.
kevingurney e240ebe
Delete bundle install step.
kevingurney 60b85ad
Change .nvmrc to use lts/hydrogen as Node.js version.
kevingurney a526225
Use `.nvmrc` file with `node-version-file` input to `actions/setup-no…
kevingurney 6f9568f
Update Webpack version to 5.75.0.
kevingurney 22361aa
Increase Node.js 'engines' requirement in package.json to 18.14.2 or …
kevingurney 6d30aab
Use 2 spaces for indentation.
kevingurney 998bb83
Add comment about Ubuntu 22.04 being the the latest available LTS ver…
kevingurney 80a5274
package-lock.json update Node.js 'engines' requirement to version 18.…
kevingurney 067009b
Replace lts/hydrogen with lts/* in .nvmrc.
kevingurney 41a0080
Remove container from website deployment workflow.
kevingurney File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -1 +1 @@ | ||
16 | ||
lts/hydrogen |
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Can we try reverting this and changes related to this? (e.g.: explicit
apt-get
,ImageOS: ubuntu22
and so on)If we can use the
ubuntu-latest
image directly, we can use simplerdeploy.yml
and don't need to maintain Ubuntu version for this.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 OK with just using
ubuntu-latest
and no container. However, I know there were some concerns about this approach expressed by @avantgardnerio (e.g. the proprietary nature and lack of debuggability ofubuntu-latest
).However, I can try this approach and if no one else in the community has reservations about it, then I am OK with it.
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 testing out the workflow with no container now on https://github.com/mathworks/arrow-site/tree/GH-325-no-container.
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.
Ah, I can understand the debuggability concern. If we make this job local debuggable, we should not use
actions/*
inubuntu:XXX
container like we did in apache/arrow: https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/.github/workflows/cpp.yml#L92-L99If we need local debuggability, we may need to choose another approach.
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.
Thanks.
It seems to work. I prefer the with container approach to the no container approach but I want to hear opinions from others.
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.
Thanks for confirming this.
How about the following steps to improve the current situation?
Dockerfile
based onubuntu:22.04
and use it in CI and https://github.com/apache/arrow-site#using-docker (This prevents breaking @alamb 's use case accidentally)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.
Thanks @avantgardnerio and @kou for your sharing your thoughts! I agree. This sounds like a reasonable path forward.
Just to clarify:
"We create a Dockerfile based on ubuntu:22.04 and use it in CI"
By "use it in CI" do you mean that you would like the GitHub Actions workflow to run inside of a Docker container based on this
Dockerfile
? If so, doesn't this conflict with 1. (which is to use the "no container" workflow)?Sorry for the confusion. I just want to make sure we are all on the same page before moving forward.
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.
My idea is that we just use
docker build && docker run
in GitHub Actions instead ofcontainer:
.(More specifically, we will use
docker/build-push-action
instead of rawdocker build
and push a built image toghcr.io
to reuse the built image on local for https://github.com/apache/arrow-site#using-docker . https://github.com/groonga/groonga-delta/blob/main/.github/workflows/docker.yml is a bit old but may help you to understand my idea.)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.
If my explanation isn't enough, please ask me more!
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.
Thanks for clarifying @kou! This make sense!
I'll start working on these changes now.