The UI for seeing logs is driving me insaaaane. It's extremely slow and sluggish. Sometimes you have to refresh the page to see the actual latest line of the log.
also normal search doesn't work, you have to use the in-UI JS search widget.
GitHub Actions Pitfalls
31–40 of 111 posts
Re: GitHub Actions Pitfalls
#32Oh, there's many more. For example: the cache action is lacking restore-only options, and there's no explicit step to fail a workflow.
Wouldn’t artifacts be better for that then? A cache can be empty.
Re: GitHub Actions Pitfalls
#33Another surprise: "ubuntu-latest" is not the latest ubuntu! It is stuck at 20.04. If you want 22.04 you need to specify "ubuntu-22.04". Similar issue with macos-latest.
Re: GitHub Actions Pitfalls
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
I've been waiting since 2013 for crypto to have a facebook-level contribution but it's still just the same crap. Every 2-3 years, the world remembers crypto exists and they funnel money into it only to be fleeced. I've yet to see one piece of tech from the crypto craze that has substantially altered peoples' lives besides losing most people money. If you're looking to get on the jump for a new piece of tech, it's pro…
Facebook substantially altered lives: it is used for genocide, recruiting insurrections, and ruins mental health -- and nobody here is wringing their hands about working on the broader ecosystem. Engineers who worked to build out DTC brands aren't considered lepers.
It feels like a double standard and pulling the ladder up, so even if the next generation of startup programmers get work, they'll be "tainted" by starting in crypto. I am in a sophisticated niche of the industry just like many readers here are in their comfortable niche of their industries and reasonably distant from the most harmful practices.
Maybe I just need to accept that SV programmers don't like to look in the mirror and see that most of our work is ultimately as pointless/destructive as crypto but with a couple extra steps.
Re: GitHub Actions Pitfalls
#35Dear GitHub actions. I want &pointers so I don’t have to repeat myself.
Also, I like that you build the hypothetical merge of branch + main. But that commit SHA is gone after that successful build. Give me a way to track this. I need to store artifacts related to this build, as I don’t want to build those again!
Re: GitHub Actions Pitfalls
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
I think that's called whataboutism.
When picking a potential employer, programmers often think "what about Google?" or "what about Facebook?" or "What about the hottest a16z startup?". When those programmers then compare/contrast the behavior of the companies they're considering, it is not considered a logical fallacy, but "making a list of pros/cons."
If I am going to trade my time and energy for money, I think it's fair to compare my options, and not an act of irrationality.
Re: GitHub Actions Pitfalls
#37The twice run workflow from "Push for all?" definitely happened to me, too. The others not so much. In New projects I tend to use scripts to perform any required task for the ci and have github actions only run the script. Way easier to reason about. Gitlab CI definitely handles this better with it "script" concept.
Yeah, I’ve lived through many a transition from one CI server to the next, so nowadays I just have CI call a script. You want to really minimize the amount you depend on a particular CI server’s features, to make switching very easy. Even if you never have to switch, it will be easier to maintain.
Re: GitHub Actions Pitfalls
#38The biggest pitfall I see is people inadvertently making them "smart" which causes massive headaches when debugging them. As much intelligence as possible ought to be pushed down to and tested and debugged on the script level so that you're left with little more than a linear sequence of 4-5 commands in your YAML. The debugging tooling on github actions is, frankly, abysmal. You need a third party ngrok action to eve…
+1. The logic in any CI server should be “call the build script”. This make it so much easier to debug failures, and easy to switch to another CI setup when the current director of IT quits and a new one comes in and forces everyone to use his/her favorite CI server.
Re: GitHub Actions Pitfalls
#39I now use a Makefile and put as much logic as I can in `make cicd` so I can call it in a single line, keeping the GitHub action as simple as possible.
Re: GitHub Actions Pitfalls
#40I now use a Makefile and put as much logic as I can in `make cicd` so I can call it in a single line, keeping the GitHub action as simple as possible.
[deleted]