ci: refactor using a single steps workflow #4545
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Any opinions on this? Again what's happening here is that we're merging all the (mostly redundant) step lists of the various workflows into a single step list, then referencing it from the other places. Flags are used to skip the steps for workflows where they are not needed (for example, the "build docs" workflow skips actually building or testing the code). Mostly, it's just eliminating redundancy and the possibility of the different workflows diverging and doing different things even for steps that we intend to be the same across all of them workflows. |
The logic for the GHA steps was repeated across multiple workflows and platforms. Consolidate it all into a common "build-steps" workflow, and have all the other workflows reference that when possible. This should hopefully make maintenance of the CI scripts easier in the future, with less redundancy of the step logic. The only major place where we deviate is that we have a separeately specified set of steps for the "old" VFX Platform 2021 and 2022 based tests (because we need to specify different container arguments to it). Signed-off-by: Larry Gritz <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Larry Gritz <[email protected]>
|
This has been sitting around for a while without any comment. I will merge it by the end of the week if there are no objections. |
lgritz
added a commit
to lgritz/OpenImageIO
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 23, 2024
…#4545) The logic for the GHA steps was repeated across multiple workflows and platforms. Consolidate it all into a common "ci-steps" workflow, and have all the other workflows reference that when possible. This should hopefully make maintenance of the CI scripts easier in the future, with less redundancy of the step logic. The only major place where we deviate is that we have a separeately specified set of steps for the "old" VFX Platform 2021 and 2022 based tests (because we need to specify different container arguments to it). --------- Signed-off-by: Larry Gritz <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The logic for the GHA steps was repeated across multiple workflows and platforms. Consolidate it all into a common "ci-steps" workflow, and have all the other workflows reference that when possible. This should hopefully make maintenance of the CI scripts easier in the future, with less redundancy of the step logic.
The only major place where we deviate is that we have a separeately specified set of steps for the "old" VFX Platform 2021 and 2022 based tests (because we need to specify different container arguments to it).