-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
Implement automatic publishing to NPM #16
Conversation
This reverts commit f3e32e3.
… `CI_venv` We need a lock file to use `npm ci` which is recommended during publication. But creating this file locally on Windows is rather difficult, so we will let CI make it for us. Which includes more changes than just the lock file.
OK, so the CI failures here are interesting. The current version of Separate from that, the tests are failing altogether on Mac because of an apparent inability to recognize the |
I've discovered that CP437 support on macOS can be added with an extra switch on line 63 of
That was an oversight from July. Please make that change on this PR, then remove Node 18 from the matrix, and then CI should pass. We might also need to remove the Once that happens, I think we'll achieve what we want with this one — no building taking place on publish, then an implicit If there were anyone else consuming this but us, I'd want to handle the downloading and installation of |
Thanks a ton for the review @savetheclocktower |
API Changes result in breaking changes for this repository. But we also are not using it on NodeJS v18 yet, so we can just remove those tests
@savetheclocktower We are still seeing failures here in macOS. Or I wonder if @DeeDeeG might have any insight into what's gone wrong here. Since it seems macOS is still reporting a lack of |
I suspect |
|
This line from the CI output is telling:
It should be finding the |
Co-authored-by: Andrew Dupont <[email protected]>
I ran into this latest error on my fork. Bear with me while I try something to see if it resolves this problem; I'll open a new PR against this one. |
…to something that can actually run on my system without complaining about random number generation.
macos-latest GitHub Actions runner is Apple Silicon at this point. I know we're not doing that at core repo as of yet. I'm not super familiar with ARM Macs and don't have access to one at the moment. |
Yeah, I can't explain why the tests are going bad on my machine but not on an Apple Silicon runner — but at least I now know I can fix it if it eventually goes wrong in CI. |
FWIW, I did an (This simulates the "payload" tarball we would be uploading to the npm registry for the package.) |
@confused-Techie will update this PR shortly with the stuff I had to do to get CI to pass. For posterity, here's a rough description of those changes. |
Update Catch2…
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.
Looks good to me, I guess?!
The catch stuff seems kinda wild, but assuming it's in service of us having unit tests that still work, I'm all for it.
The main change, to publish to npm on GitHub Release creation, I trust the intent/work others have done to get here and am merely signing off on it.
CI passes now, which is certainly nice!
👍
This PR follows the same form used over in
pulsar-edit/less-cache#7
.The only differences being:
More on the lock file:
Using
npm ci
instead ofnpm install
is recommended during publication, as it will make no attempt to bump any dependencies in your lock file, which means you can be more confident in it's functionality. Thing is, this repo didn't yet contain a lock file, and on my machine I was unable to get all of the dependencies happy enough to actually create one locally. So I had to rely on CI to do it for me. This does add some churn to my commits, but should have produced a successful and functioning lock file for us to use.