Took 2 hours of reading through examples just to deploy the site.
Turns out, it is hard to do even just the bash stuff when you can't see the container.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] akash_rawal@lemmy.world 60 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (14 children)

Time for the yearly barrage of "Setup CI"..."Fix CI" commits.

That is my experience with basically every CI service out there.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 38 points 3 days ago (13 children)

Normally, you don't want to commit code unless it's been at least minimally tested, and preferably more than that.

All the CI's, however, force a workflow where you can only test it by committing the code and seeing if it works. I'm not sure how to fix that, but I see the problem.

[–] akash_rawal@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

We test our code locally, but we cannot test the workflow. By definition, testing the workflow has to be done on a CI-like system.

There is nektos/act for running github actions locally, it works for simple cases. There still are many differences between act and github actions.

It might be possible for a CI to define workflow steps using Containerfile/Dockerfile. Such workflows would be reproducible locally.

load more comments (12 replies)