-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38
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
Finalize GitHub Sync #2352
Comments
Instead of putting a path directly in the job-xyz:
...
body:
path: ../my-job.js That way we can tell that the body is not available directly under the key much more easily, and leaves room for other features. If the Note that this path is relative to the project.yaml, and not the current working directory. |
Noting that after #2707 and #2462 @midigofrank and @stuartc will reasses this epic to determine if/what still needs to be done. |
Appetite: 5 days
Make "Initiate Github Sync" take the latest snapshots at the time of initiation
Support paths to job files in project.yaml files
For users who work locally or for certain projects in their GitHub repos, users want to keep their jobs in different .js files and then have the files referenced in their project.yaml files. When OpenFn deploy is called, we need to make sure we get the content of the files and add them to the right section on the project.yaml.
We should advise users to create a job.js file for every job such that for a workflow with 5 steps, we will need 5 jobs.js files. that are referenced in the .yaml file.
cli deploy
and detecting a file path in the yaml, you merge in the real content before sending it to the lightning servercli pull
you get a new copy of theproject.yaml
and theprojectState.json
and compare it to the local copy of theproject.yaml
... you notice that the localproject.yaml
has file paths, and instead of committing the entirely newproject.yaml
to GitHub, you interpret the paths and write to those files.See this example below, currently a job looks like this:
Since we are wrapping around GitHub APIs, we should be returning error messages that help users know how to diagnose and find solutions rather than returning generalized error messages like "Oops!...". The recommendation here will be that we don't process the error messages in any special manner but return it as
GitHub Error: {message}
. This way the user can try to search for solutions on their own or know what to communicate via the community.Bugs to be fixed:
workflow_id
when cli deploying #2445cli pull
: Print errors instead of panicking when pulling invalid spec files kit#753Nice to haves:
The following issues are nice to have and should not be considered a priority for this building cycle
Other consideration based on thunderbolt and plan limits.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: