This is my normal CI/CD workflow -- even for GitLab. Debugging why CI/CD doesn't work is one of the worst headaches you can imagine.
GitHub Actions could be so much better
31–40 of 238 posts
Re: GitHub Actions could be so much better
#32I couldn't agree more with the pain of debugging a GH Actions run. The /only/ tool you have is the ability to re-run with debug on. That's it. I have so many "trash" commits trying to fix or debug a pipeline and so much of it's just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks.
Very basic things, like having reusable logic, is needlessly complex or poorly documented. Once I figured out how to do it it was fairly easy but GitHub's docs were terrible for this. They made it seem like I had to publish an action to get any reusability or put it in a different repo. Turns out you can create new yaml files with reusable logic but make sure you put them in the root of the workflows folder or they won't work, go figure.
It's just incredibly painful to work on GH Actions but once you have them working they are such a joy. I really wish there was some kind of local runner or way to test your actions before committing and pushing.
Re: GitHub Actions could be so much better
#33What's the technology behind the blog? It's clean, minimal and beautiful.
It's a Jekyll site. I originally built it off of a popular theme (back in 2014 or so), but these days the theme is just a custom thing that I've cobbled together.
(So, in a sense, there's no real technology "behind" it. It's just Markdown with a little HTML templating, with Jekyll as the SSG.)
Re: GitHub Actions could be so much better
#34I couldn't agree more with the pain of debugging a GH Actions run. The /only/ tool you have is the ability to re-run with debug on. That's it. I have so many "trash" commits trying to fix or debug a pipeline and so much of it's just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks. Very basic things, like having reusable logic, is needlessly complex or poorly documented. Once I figured out how to do it it was fairly ea…
I've tried running the GitHub runner image (or maybe an imitation) and it was really painful to setup and to get some things working. I just let it go after 2 days.
And it's not just Github. The others big CI platform are not really better in terms of workflow and integration.
Now I just script everything to the maximum.
Re: GitHub Actions could be so much better
#35The git commit, push, wait loop is terrible UX. Users deserve portable pipelines that run anywhere, including their local machines. I understand Act [1] goes some way to solving this headache but it's by and large not a true representation. There are many pipelines you can't run locally, because they're production, for example, but there's no reason why we can't capture these workflows to run them locally at less-cri…
If folks just had actions target make or bash scripts instead of turning actions into bash scripts none of this would be an issue. Your CI/CD and your devs should all use the same targets/commands like `make release`.
I'm actually confused and scared on how often this isn't the case? What are people doing in their actions that isn't easily doable locally?
Re: GitHub Actions could be so much better
#36I mean GH Actions is basically a re-brand of Microsoft's "Azure Pipelines". As somebody who used all previous incarnations of TFS/VSTS/AzDO build and release pipelines: they are not good at this . This is not a team with a record of success. That Azure Pipelines is moderately usable only happened because they failed literally every other approach they tried. There was a project to allow you to run the pipelines local…
> I mean GH Actions is basically a re-brand of Microsoft's "Azure Pipelines". As somebody who used all previous incarnations of TFS/VSTS/AzDO build and release pipelines: they are not good at this. This is not a team with a record of success. That Azure Pipelines is moderately usable only happened because they failed literally every other approach they tried.
I was under the impression (which might be wrong!) that GHA was an independent project within GitHub that was well underway before the acquisition. Are you saying that GHA was rebuilt on top of AzP, that it's just a relabeling of AzP, or something else?
(I have no particular dog in it being one way or the other, but I'm curious about the history here.)
Re: GitHub Actions could be so much better
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
We use Github Actions and we just don't have any issues with it outside the first time we set it up for each repo. Then we make 100s of commits a week and it does its thing and our work goes live a few seconds later. That's why I love it. Could things be better? Of course; that's how software is--and this should resonate with most folks on this site. But just because some product isn't infallible doesn't mean we can'…
>Then we make 100s of commits a week and it does its thing and our work goes live a few seconds later. Wow, computers doing what they're supposed to do. Pretty impressive ... The UX on GH actions is crap, other CI/CD solutions give you way more control and tooling. GH really needs to step up their game on this one.
I am not sure why you’re being so snarky, but I did address that it could be better.
The thing for us is that we’re already paying for GitHub and Actions are included. I know, for a fact, GH is/was working with stakeholders using their software to get feedback on what could be better. So they are trying!
I’m not here being a fanboy by any means; I’m just saying it does what I need it to do and I’m an active user who is pleased with the service provided.
YMMV.
Re: GitHub Actions could be so much better
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a usecase where chatgpt works great! I usually pass this kind of ops DSL in gpt and it will find my mistakes. Github actions and graphanaQL code, oof, they just click for me.
I'm not gonna post my employer's proprietary code into ChatGPT.
Don't fixate on the details, fixate on the larger point. your specific situation of having code self-hosted and an employer that cares deeply about their proprietary code is a detail beside the point. LLMs shine at fixing up DSLs that you're unfamiliar with. chatgpt to llm is kleenex to facial tissue.
Re: GitHub Actions could be so much better
#39I mean GH Actions is basically a re-brand of Microsoft's "Azure Pipelines". As somebody who used all previous incarnations of TFS/VSTS/AzDO build and release pipelines: they are not good at this . This is not a team with a record of success. That Azure Pipelines is moderately usable only happened because they failed literally every other approach they tried. There was a project to allow you to run the pipelines local…
> I mean GH Actions is basically a re-brand of Microsoft's "Azure Pipelines". As somebody who used all previous incarnations of TFS/VSTS/AzDO build and release pipelines: they are not good at this. This is not a team with a record of success. That Azure Pipelines is moderately usable only happened because they failed literally every other approach they tried. I was under the impression (which might be wrong!) that GH…
They share a lot of code. My understanding is that it was an MS project first, but I might have that backwards.
> GitHub Workflows execute on runners. The runner code is essentially a fork of the Azure Pipelines code, so it's very similar. It's also cross-platform and you can also use hosted or self-hosted runners.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/architecture/devops...
Re: GitHub Actions could be so much better
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
If folks just had actions target make or bash scripts instead of turning actions into bash scripts none of this would be an issue. Your CI/CD and your devs should all use the same targets/commands like `make release`.
I'm actually confused and scared on how often this isn't the case? What are people doing in their actions that isn't easily doable locally?
A huge portion of my actions are for things like caching or publishing artifacts, which are unique to actions itself.