Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Build: Use GitHub Actions for CI/CD #255

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 25, 2019
Merged

Build: Use GitHub Actions for CI/CD #255

merged 3 commits into from
Oct 25, 2019

Conversation

keithamus
Copy link
Member

@keithamus keithamus commented Aug 19, 2019

This uses GitHub Actions with the new CI/CD features to test and deploy chai-http to npm

It attempts to mimic the existing travis.yml as closely as possible.

To clarify where the tokens exist; they're in the settings page for this repo under "Security Tokens". NPM_TOKEN exists in there, but github_token is managed automatically by GitHub Actions.

@austince
Copy link
Contributor

austince commented Aug 19, 2019

I like the idea of migrating from travis to here! Should we merge #252 and then update this PR to run semantic-release instead of the publish-npm stage? #252 still needs some travis-specific updates to actually deploy.

@keithamus
Copy link
Member Author

@austince yes let's merge #252 first.

@keithamus
Copy link
Member Author

This passes the Actions CI. Travis is failing as it is trying to support older versions of Node, but it also passes the more recent builds.

I'd say this is good to go, maybe with a ✅ from @chaijs/core?

@keithamus keithamus requested review from austince and a team August 19, 2019 15:40
Copy link
Contributor

@austince austince left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we remove the travis config or drop the earily node versions is as well in this commit? We'll have to at least disable publishing I think.

.github/workflows/ci.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/ci.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@austince austince left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great!

@austince
Copy link
Contributor

@chaijs/core sorry to ping you all, but does anyone have a chance to take a look at this? There's continued interest in adding PRs (#259) and just hoping we can get this in before blocking any of them. Thanks!

@keithamus
Copy link
Member Author

I'll just go ahead and merge this one 😆

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet