Skip to content
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

Support multiple runs of the action in the same job #66

Merged

Conversation

travislikestocode
Copy link
Contributor

@travislikestocode travislikestocode commented Jun 30, 2021

Description

Somewhat naive attempt at allowing the action to run multiple times in the same job. By deleting the plan and log before running octodns-sync, we make the plan file available to later steps. I also added the plan output to the action for more flexibility. The ability to use multiple octodns_refs is not supported. The ref from the first run will be used for any subsequent runs.

Hope this adequately addresses the concerns in the issue. I'm very open to any change suggestions!

Motivation and Context

See #57

How Has This Been Tested?

Created a test workflow which runs the action twice in the same job, and then prints the plan output. The action run was successful

Screenshots (if appropriate):

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.
  • [N/A] All new and existing tests passed.

Copy link
Owner

@solvaholic solvaholic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I dig it, thank you @travislikestocode! 🙇

The net effect of these changes is a) subsequent workflow job steps using solvaholic/octodns-sync now run instead of failing and b) the plan output exists. I don't see how this can break current use of main so I'm happy to merge them.

I'll kick the linter, see if I can get it to sort itself out...

 to appease the linter
@solvaholic
Copy link
Owner

I'll kick the linter, see if I can get it to sort itself out...

Worked around this initially by pushing refs/pull/66/head as the issue66 branch, then updated the linter workflow in #68.

solvaholic added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 5, 2021
solvaholic added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 5, 2021
@solvaholic solvaholic merged commit 41a0287 into solvaholic:main Jul 5, 2021
@travislikestocode travislikestocode mentioned this pull request Jul 7, 2021
7 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants