Skip to content
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

Use espup #16

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Dec 20, 2022
Merged

Use espup #16

merged 9 commits into from
Dec 20, 2022

Conversation

SergioGasquez
Copy link
Member

@SergioGasquez SergioGasquez commented Dec 15, 2022

Use espup instead of rust-build script for installation. This should also solve #15 as it removes the call, and relies on the version check to espup.

Time-wise, the action takes around 2 minutes, the same as the rust-build scripts used to last.

Also, I've created another branch that improves the cases covered by the CI as many arguments are not covered atm, if we endup merging this PR, I'll create another one for it.

@jessebraham
Copy link
Member

jessebraham commented Dec 19, 2022

This is looking pretty good, as far as I can tell. Thanks for making these updates, hopefully it will be a bit more reliable.

~2 minutes is acceptable I think, I would still like to get it down a bit but it's reasonable. Something we can work on in the future.

Out of curiosity have you tested the workflow with any of the repositories currently using it (eg. esp-hal) or are we just relying on the local CI? In theory our CI should be fine, but I'd just like to be certain that things work as expected. You can use owner/repo@hash to run an unpublished action (see the docs).

@SergioGasquez
Copy link
Member Author

~2 minutes is acceptable I think, I would still like to get it down a bit but it's reasonable. Something we can work on in the future.

Once espup is async, this should be improved!

Out of curiosity have you tested the workflow with any of the repositories currently using it (eg. esp-hal) or are we just relying on the local CI? In theory our CI should be fine, but I'd just like to be certain that things work as expected. You can use owner/repo@hash to run an unpublished action (see the docs).

I've run esp-hal five times with the new changes and 0 failures so far: https://github.com/SergioGasquez/esp-hal/actions/runs/3732477054

@jessebraham
Copy link
Member

Thanks for testing it out!

@jessebraham jessebraham merged commit 0b7f70e into main Dec 20, 2022
@SergioGasquez SergioGasquez deleted the feature/use-espup branch December 21, 2022 10:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Increased rate of transient failures in recent weeks Replace installation method from script for espup
2 participants