stanfordbdhg / .github Goto Github PK

Problem

We are currently using gaurav-nelson/github-action-markdown-link-check@v1 for our markdown link checker. However, per its README the author is no longer maintaining it. The current action has a number of limitations and false positives (as the author notes) which will not be addressed.

Solution

We can look into other suitable alternatives, or write our own. The author of the action we are currently using also notes that he is working on a new action, which we can consider when it is finished.

Additional context

No response

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct and Contributing Guidelines

Problem

• While reusable actions provide multiple different needed functionalists, most of these can now be used by actions published on the GitHub Actions Marketplace.

Solution

• We should extract actions such as the Xcode Build action into a separate repo that hosts the GitHub Action and makes it available to the GitHub Marketplace.

Additional context

No response

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct and Contributing Guidelines

Problem

The current README only documents a subset of included workflows.

Solution

It would be great if all workflows are properly documented including some examples and the current examples are updated to reflect the latest changes.

Additional context

No response

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct and Contributing Guidelines

Problem

We are currently using the v3 version of the codecov action. A newer release v4 removed a feature that we relied on, namely converting .xcresult coverage format to one that codecov understands. This was removed without a proper replacement. We have reported our situation here: codecov/codecov-action#1367. Our motivation to upgrade to v4 is mainly driven by the fact that tokenless uploads were randomly broken in v3.

Their new approach uses llvm-cov which uses .profdata files sourced from the derived data folder (the path is hardcoded to ~/Library/Developer/Xcode/DerivedData), see https://github.com/codecov/uploader/pull/968/files. They scan for all .app, .framework and .test folders in the derived data subfolders.

Solution

There are two ways forward here:

• Convert the coverage files ourselves
• Try to adapt our infrastructure to accommodate for their new workflow.

We could use a tool like xcresultparser (available via brew) to do the conversion ourself into the Cobertura XML format. Drawback would be that this introduces yet another tool, not a 100% conversion (authors note Note that some data in this file is currently fake) and relying on the xccov format which might randomly break between Xcode releases (seemingly also the reason why there is not a large adoption for that?).
Another approach could be to execute the xcrun llvm-cov ... commands ourself?

If we wanted to adapt our infrastructure for the new codecov infrastructure. We would need to make sure that the necessary profdata files are uploaded as artifacts (such that the collect coverage reports action can use it). We are probably fine uploading a .xctest archive (not sure how it differs from .xcresult).

Additional context

Related PRs around cutest coverage conversion:

• codecov/uploader#803

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct and Contributing Guidelines

Problem

Currently, it is relatively hard to review what tests failed in a Xcode test run.

Solution

There is a seemingly nice package to visualize xcresults in GitHub Actions. Would be great to explore that at some point https://github.com/kishikawakatsumi/xcresulttool.

Additional context

No response

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct and Contributing Guidelines

Problem

• The current repo setup relies on external tests in other repos to validate the functionality of the build scripts

Solution

• The repo should contain a test project that contains multiple targets to validate the functionality of the different GitHub Actions

Additional context

This issue is a great way to get started with contributing to the GitHub Actions and getting familiar with the issue as it mainly consists of testing and validating the existing functionality.

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct and Contributing Guidelines