-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
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
Revision output of github action build_spack is not useful #134
Comments
Is the clean directive of the action a problem? See the docs of the action https://github.com/actions/checkout I added the No |
That's interesting. This means that
|
I missed some option in my action so hidden files/directories were not shown. I fixed that and I see some hidden files now: https://github.com/ajaust/python-bindings/runs/3966490670?check_suite_focus=true In fact, the
|
The checkout stage of the action might give us the answer:
There is also an issue actions/checkout#335 |
By force installing a newer Git version, as suggested in actions/checkout#335, it works. See: https://github.com/ajaust/python-bindings/runs/3966791087?check_suite_focus=true However only the git commit hash is visible, but not the version number. Could this be a problem since only the last commit is fetched i.e. the version information is not available. |
Fetching all history for all tags and branchesetch-all-history-for-all-tags-and-branches gives me a nonzero version number, but it prints
instead of https://github.com/ajaust/python-bindings/runs/3967769011?check_suite_focus=true |
See #133 (comment) and #133 (comment).
We currently get the output
unknown+0
for the version when running the actionbuild_spack
online (see here). However, in different local tests the output is as expected. This makes the action less useful, because we don't see which version is actually tested. From local, manual testing everything looks good, but this is a bit contradicting the idea of having a CI here.The goal is to have identical output for local runs (e.g. via
act -j build_spack
) and for the online CI.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: