Replies: 1 comment 4 replies
-
|
New security policies.
Yes, this is permanent. Yes, this is an inconvenience. 😞 Please @ the dotnet/sqlclientdevteam or an individual on the team if you need us to trigger CI for you. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This is an unwelcome change. Not having CI auto run at a basic level is going to slow down the pace of development. As seen recently it's entirely possible to have a local build that works but which fails on an obscure combination build in CI. Is it possible to break the enclave/secret requiring parts out into a separate set of items that can be selectively run manually by the team who have permissions? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Agree on this being a PITA for external contributors. The secret part is already separated. Forks will never have access to secrets. But there is still a requirement for a team member comment before kicking off CI. 😞 We are considering switching to GitHub actions for automatic CI validation (if that's feasible and not going to be blocked in the future), but that's a good chunk of work. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yeah, Unfortunately this makes it very uncomfortable for me to contribute to this project, so I'll likely refrain from it for the time being |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I've filed some issues about the local developer experience with tests which will need to be fixed if we can't use the CI to test builds. The local test experience has always been awful and hard in the places where it doesn't simply fail. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I've seen changes recently as to when CI runs (e.g. not on Forks anymore) - would you mind giving us peasants an update on the status of this? What's the change? Why? Is it Permanent?
Thhhhx bye
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions