ci: separate lint, run tests on code changes
Split lint into separate job and limit Go tests to run only for changes that affect the code Add gitattributes and renormalize files
🦙 MegaLinter status: ⚠️ WARNING
| Descriptor | Linter | Files | Fixed | Errors | Elapsed time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ EDITORCONFIG | editorconfig-checker | 3 | 0 | 0.01s | |
| ✅ REPOSITORY | gitleaks | yes | no | 3.3s | |
| ✅ REPOSITORY | git_diff | yes | no | 0.01s | |
| ✅ REPOSITORY | grype | yes | no | 9.74s | |
| ✅ REPOSITORY | secretlint | yes | no | 1.28s | |
| ✅ REPOSITORY | trivy-sbom | yes | no | 0.74s | |
| ✅ REPOSITORY | trufflehog | yes | no | 5.19s | |
| ⚠️ YAML | prettier | 2 | 1 | 0.28s | |
| ✅ YAML | v8r | 2 | 0 | 2.37s |
See detailed report in MegaLinter reports
Set VALIDATE_ALL_CODEBASE: true in mega-linter.yml to validate all sources, not only the diff
Codecov Report
:white_check_mark: All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
:white_check_mark: Project coverage is 74.29%. Comparing base (5a80a04) to head (b395fbb).
:warning: Report is 226 commits behind head on master.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2679 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 61.56% 74.29% +12.72%
===========================================
Files 53 72 +19
Lines 9002 11051 +2049
===========================================
+ Hits 5542 8210 +2668
+ Misses 3020 2208 -812
- Partials 440 633 +193
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
:rocket: New features to boost your workflow:
- :snowflake: Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
- :package: JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.
if ci is skipped due to such a filter then is the status check missing (not skipped, just not present) => we might need changes to mergify / permissions...
Projects like gitea, use an action that emulates this github actions paths without such problems...... Not trivial
@panekj - can you add some notes to the description to document the intention of this PR? Also - what are your thoughts about the comment @ChristopherHX made regarding test-linux being a required check to merge?
what are your thoughts about the comment @ChristopherHX made regarding
test-linuxbeing a required check to merge?
It's possible that it might break and probably should be fixed. Other than that, I'm not touching Mergify since I don't know it and have no intention to figure out how it works.
