ci: implemment pagination #266
Conversation
Gmin2
requested review from
derberg,
alequetzalli,
fmvilas,
KhudaDad414 and
asyncapi-bot-eve
as code owners
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Welcome to AsyncAPI. Thanks a lot for creating your first pull request. Please check out our contributors guide useful for opening a pull request.
Keep in mind there are also other channels you can use to interact with AsyncAPI community. For more details check out this issue.
i am too not a big fan of bash but as @smoya had mentioned in the issue to use some bash thats why i have used bash but no problem i am converting it too js |
Totally no strong opinion on using bash or any language of our preference TBH. So 👍 on my side. |
|
@KhudaDad414 @smoya should i rewrite this in js or not |
|
@Min2who please rewrite to JS as we have a lot of experience with it and it will be much better to maintain long term. please use https://github.com/actions/github-script action that already have pagination related plugins added so writing such script will be much better DX and also much readable ❤️ so one step will be just getting data from GitHub API (by default afaik response will be stored as part of output that you will be able to access from another step https://github.com/actions/github-script?tab=readme-ov-file#reading-step-results). And in another step you will construct a commit message. such approach will make maintenance much better + will make is easier to debug in future |
As @derberg stated, +1 to use JS. From the very moment this is not gonna be a simple one liner as it was, it will become very hard to maintain. |
|
@KhudaDad414 @derberg @smoya can you suggest me some way to test this actions locally |
|
@Min2who actions are a little hard to test especially this one. I would suggest testing the script you write separately and making sure it gets what you want. testing the entire workflow is a little more challenging, you may need to test it on your fork. I think testing the script here suffices. |
|
i have updated this action using the github octokit.paginate plugin and have test this in my local fork action in this |
|
made the changes cc @KhudaDad414 |
|
@utnim2 did you see my other comments? |
ahh sorry , working on it |
|
Done the reviewed changes The test of this action here |
|
@utnim2 lgtm but there were some changes done since initial implementation, can you show your changes somewhere in action, in some test repo? I can help if you need someone to open a PR in your repo, and then you make edits to make sure it works |
| # 5. Removes repeated authors (authors can have more than one commit in the PR). | ||
| # 6. Builds the `Co-authored-by: ...` lines with actual info. | ||
| # 7. Transforms the array into plain text. Thanks to this, the actual stdout of this step can be used by the next Workflow step (wich is basically the automerge). | ||
| cmd: | |
Description
Each co-author appear in a new line and implement pagination
Related issue(s)
Resolves #263