GitHub Actions: Warn if docs manifest possibly outdated #232
Conversation
|
The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the Core Committers: Use this line as a base for the props when committing in SVN: To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook. |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## trunk #232 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage ? 1.17%
Complexity ? 4416
=======================================
Files ? 261
Lines ? 27017
Branches ? 0
=======================================
Hits ? 318
Misses ? 26699
Partials ? 0 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
| @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ | |||
| name: Keep docs manifest up to date | |||
| on: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The on config here is what diverges the most from the other workflows. Initially, based on Gutenberg's components-changelog workflow, I wanted this check to be more conservative.
But now that I look at it again, and given the approach I finally took, maybe it should be the same as in the others. Thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me like this. What do you think could be different?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wasn't sure about the preferences — if any — for the branches property, nor about which workflows should also run on push events. But I'm about to push a simplification here, limiting the workflow to pull_request events and looking more like other workflows.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request events sound good, regenerating the manifest should be enforces for PRs that target trunk 👍
mcsf
force-pushed
the
add/ci-check-docs-manifest
branch
from
b98bd96 to
b4cbd29
Compare
mcsf
force-pushed
the
add/ci-check-docs-manifest
branch
from
b4cbd29 to
174afad
Compare
| @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ | |||
| name: Keep docs manifest up to date | |||
| on: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me like this. What do you think could be different?
Feel free to close if useless!
Noticing the problem in #220, I drew inspiration from one of Gutenberg's workflows to add a workflow that will fail if
docs/bin/manifest.jsonneeds to be regenerated.It does this by running the
docs:manifestcomposer script and verifying that the manifest has not changed. If it has, something is wrong with the branch, and the developer is told to manually generate the docs. I prefered the manual approach for several reasons, one of which is to avoid "magic" and instead teaching/reminding the developer of processes.I attempted to fit into the style and practices of this repo's other workflows, but I may be wildly wrong. I'll also let you folks label this as you see fit. :)