Just completed a GitHub workflow using more of them are actions, but also with one bash script.
When writing the workflow, it seems much quicker use bash script than actions.(since some actions are just do one thing. ) Why are the some reasons that we just need GitHub actions rather than bash script or python script trigger?
Or we are just supposed to use script languages for most part, then use GitHub actions for small portion of the whole workflow?
Interesting but not easy to answer with more information about what your goal is. The right answer might depend on your use case.
I have not used GitHub actions yet. Let me try to explain it anyway, starting pretty high level. Unfortunately, there's no option to add a table of contents ;) Please let me know if this helps.
1. What are GitHub Actions for?
From this "What is GitHub Actions? Benefits and examples" PDF file
GitHub Actions is a CI/CD tool for the GitHub flow. You can use it to integrate and deploy code changes to a third-party cloud application platform as well as test, track, and manage code changes. GitHub Actions also supports third-party CI/CD tools, the container platform Docker, and other automation platforms.
From docs.github.com
GitHub Actions is a continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) platform that allows you to automate your build, test, and deployment pipeline. You can create workflows that build and test every pull request to your repository or deploy merged pull requests to production. [...]
GitHub Actions goes beyond just DevOps and lets you run workflows when other events happen in your repository.
2. Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment (CI/CD)
Usually, people run CI/CD tools to build, deploy, test, and run other tasks while doing that. We use another 3rd party CI/CD pipeline using Rake to build, test, and check links. Our pipeline invokes these small scripts you mention.
3. GitHub actions and scripts
From Essential features of GitHub Actions
If your job generates files that you want to share with another job in the same workflow, or if you want to save the files for later reference, you can store them in GitHub as artifacts. Artifacts are the files created when you build and test your code. For example, artifacts might include binary or package files, test results, screenshots, or log files. Artifacts are associated with the workflow run where they were created and can be used by another job. All actions and workflows called within a run have write access to that run's artifacts.
Here's the key point, I guess. You can really do a lot of crazy stuff within a workflow. All is related/specific to GitHub. Workflows are event-driven, meaning that you can run a series of commands after a specified event has occurred. For example, every time someone creates a pull request, you can automatically run a command that executes a test or other script.
4. GitHub action workflow and scripts
You can include different scripts in your workflow, e.g. using
Javascript: https://github.com/actions/github-script
Python: https://github.com/marketplace/actions/run-python-script
5. (Complex) Examples
You can check out the repository for docs.github.com for some more complex examples, see action-scripts and workflow folders. GitHub themselves seems to use it pretty heavily.
6. Advantages/Disadvantages of GitHub actions
OR: Differences to other CI tools
It took some time to find something not marketing-ish. Key points are:
beginner-friendly using YAML config files
no need to set up your own CI pipeline
You can check out this SO post from 2019 for a list of what's good and bad about GitHub actions.
In short - for readability and the DRY ("Don't repeat yourself") principle.
It's more or less the same as using functions in programming.
I can agree that some trivial actions are useless.
But "actions/checkout" for example is priceless!
Related
The company I work on recently purchased SonarQube Enterprise to improve code quality throughout all repositories. I found out that there is a feature that enables SonarQube to comment automatically on PRs targeting a specific branch, and I successfully managed to try that out.
Thing is:
That configuration is not scalable: I would need to manually configure every repo to follow that rule
That configuration needs a build pipeline to be defined "old school" on Azure DevOps to work, and we are moving into Pipeline as Code, starting of course with CI (where this takes place)
Anyone managed to get the PR commenting working in that scenario? Or, at least, solving the #1 problem?
Cheers
You can use REST APIs to do whatever configuration you need to do across your repositories. Refer to the REST API documentation.
Shouldn't matter, although I haven't tested it. The SonarQube tasks aren't aware of whether the build source is YAML or visual designer/classic/JSON builds. The underlying tasks and job running architecture is the same. As long as the build is hooked up to a branch policy, it should still work.
looking for workflow solution. We need something like ad-hoc sharing workflow https://docs.bit.dev/docs/workflows/projects with one addition - before the component publishing could happen only after the code review. let me try to describe the short scenario:
there is a repo with the shared components
there are several consumer projects. each one sits in its own repo
there is no dedicated team to maintain the repo with the shared components
the developer of consumer project imports a share component and make changes
the developer wants to create a pull request for a component changes
So far I see only one solution - the developer manually applies changes he made locally to a shared library repo and manually creates a pull request. Kind of boring. Does the bit.dev provide an automated solution for such case?
While a PR-like feature is still not available in Bit, you can use Git's PR workflow to set up a code review process for components with some automation.
Note this flow can work regardless of the specific workflow your team implements. In this answer, I'll focus on the ad-hock flow, as your team uses.
You'll first need to set up automation on your projects, that when there's a change in component's code, your CI will bit tag && bit export the modified components. This should happen only when a PR is approved and merged to master branch (in Git).
Then using the Git integration feature set up your projects to receive PRs on new versions for components.
With these two setups, this will be the workflow your team can utilize:
Import component to any project and modify.
Submit PR to the project.
Have a peer do a code review.
When change is merged, run bit tag && bit export --eject during CI
Commit and push back changes to package.json to the repo (with a skip-ci flag, per your automation infrastructure).
All projects that use that component get a PR from Bit with the newly available version.
I will update this answer whenever a new feature in Bit improves on this workflow.
as Itay says, you can use the GitHub integration on bit.dev.
But if you want, I create demos projects that show how to use GitHub or Azure CI to integrate the project with Bit, and export new components when code our pushed to master, and also run Bit script on PRs.
https://github.com/teambit/bit-with-github-actions
https://github.com/teambit/bit-with-azure-devops
I hope it will help you.
I've recently been working on switching from On premise TFS to Azure DevOps, and trying to learn more about the different pipelines and I think I may have had my Build pipeline do too much.
Currently I have my Build Pipeline do
Get Source code from Repo
Run database scripts/deploy dacpacs
Copy files over to virtual machines that have web application set up already
Run unit/integration tests
Publish the test results
I repeat these steps closely multiple times, one for develop branch, one for current and previous release branch.
But if I want to take advantage of the Releases and Deployments areas what would that really get me?
It looks like it would be easier to say yes this code did make it out to this dev/beta environment.
I'm working with ColdFusion code that includes some .NET webservices within the repo, would I have to make an artifact that zips up the repo and then deploys it, or is there a better way to take advantage of the release pipeline?
It's not necessary to make an artifact that zips up the repo and then deploys it. There are several types of tools you might use in your application lifecycle process to produce or store artifacts. For example, you might use version control systems such as Git or TFVC to store your artifacts. You can configure Azure Pipelines to deploy artifacts from multiple sources. Check the following link for more details:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/release/artifacts?view=azure-devops#sources
Is there any service / feature of github.com just like Bitbucket Pipeline ?
I'm actually want to push my master branch to FTP server (cpanel, apache) . It's really easy with Bitbucket Pipeline, but any way to do that in Github ?
Github now has a feature called Github Actions, which allows you to execute arbitrary commands and processes triggered by events such as repository writes, pull request merges, and others similar to Bitbucket Pipelines. So your build/test/deploy stages can be run using Github's infrastructure, or you can move your app code to a remote location such as an FTP server, to kick off a code pipeline or update remote artifacts.
GitHub itself doesn't provide this feature, but you can use GitHub apps, such as Travis CI.
Travis CI enables your team to test and ship your apps with confidence. It’s built for everyone and for projects and teams of all sizes, supporting over 20 different languages out of the box, including Javascript and Node.js, Ruby, PHP, Python, Mac/iOS, as well as Docker, while giving you full control over the build environment to customize it to your own needs.
There is also other apps for continuous integration: https://github.com/marketplace/category/continuous-integration
Not that I know of. You could however setup an internal build server using jenkins, circle ci, or travis ci. I have used both jenkins and circle ci both integrate well with github(It's fairly straight forward process). Jenkins is open source, where as circle ci is cloud base solution(it has a free tier). Both I believe could help solve your issue.
GitHub announced an upcoming feature, GitHub Actions.
I'm positive on the benefits of CI tools like Jenkins for automatic building or testing, which GitHub Actions is aimed to be used for in the future.
Having a repository on GitHub and using an external CI tool has the huge benefit of allowing to move the repository to another Git repository platform (or even local) without rewriting of the whole CI process. With GitHub Actions, you're more or less tied to the GitHub ecosystem.
I assume the integration of GitHub's Actions will be more fluent in the native environment, but are there any other advantages or disadvantages besides that?
I've been working with GitHub actions full time for a couple of months now.
It's still early days (June 2019), but here's my list:
Advantages:
GitHub actions are just consecutive docker runs. Very easy to reason about and debug.
Reproducing the build environment for container-based Travis is
possible,
but more difficult.
On GitHub actions it's just a docker build docker run away.
The individual actions in a workflow are isolated by default.
You can use a completely different computing environment for, say, compilation and testing.
Travis CI (and I think other "traditional" CI) would run all "stages" (~ actions) in the same computing environment.
Again, GitHub actions are much easier to reason about and debug.
The main.workflow spec (a subset of the HCL and really just a directed acyclic graph) is open source.
The whole thing is a pretty thin wrapper around Docker anyway, so platform lock-in is arguably minimal.
There are already open-source reimplementations of GitHub actions, such as act for local testing.
You have ready access to the GitHub API with (somewhat limited) authentication out of the box.
There might be a vibrant community (marketplace?) where people can share actions.
For example, I'm reusing deploy actions build by different people in different ecosystems.
A directed acyclic graph (DAG) and the visual editor for main.workflows is perhaps a good way to model CI/CD in particular and workflows in general.
Takes some getting used to, but generalises well.
GitHub actions can do a whole lot more than just CI! You've got basically the whole API at your fingertips as inputs and outputs.
Disadvantages:
GitHub actions (still?) has sometimes surprisingly foundational limitations at this point (june 2019).
No native caching.
You get image and layer caching (it's complicated), but nothing else.
For build artefacts, you have to roll your own cache (via AWS, Azure, etc. ...), which can be a lot of work. (You can see a hacky setup here.
Surprisingly, no support for pull requests from forks.
It's again a bit complicated, and understandable from a security standpoint, but it's currently not possible to run actions a) against the secrets of the receiving repo of a fork PR (base), and/or b) against the would-be merge result of a fork PR (that's what travis does).
For a workflow that involves forks, that makes GitHub actions largely unuseable as CI/CD tool.
Single platform, it's just whatever you can run inside docker, so some Linux distro. That seems unlikely to change, but might be an acceptable limitation.
You can always add an action to call other cross-platfrom CI/CD services.
The documentation is still pretty sparse.
Not much in the way of best practices or scaffolding.
The quality and breadth of published GitHub actions (at least on the marketplace) is still pretty low / limited.
We'll see whether that takes off.
No great way to unit-test actions. (I hacked something together, but I'm not too sure about it).
Having a repository on GitHub and using an external CI tool has the huge benefit of allowing to move the repository to another Git repository platform (or even local) without rewriting of the whole CI process.
With GitHub Actions, you're more or less tied to the GitHub ecosystem.
Yes, and starting November 2019, slightly less so:
See Joe Bourne's annoucement "Self-hosted runners for GitHub Actions is now in beta".
You can have self-hosted runners, which means:
Your environment, your tools,
Any size machine or configuration,
Secure access and networking,
Large workload support.
To support using self-hosted runners in your workflows, we’ve expanded the experience of using the runs-on key.
When registering your self-hosted runners, they’re each given a read-only label self-hosted which you can use with runs-on.
Here’s an example:
# Use Any available Self-hosted runners connected to repo
runs-on: self-hosted
See the documentation at "Hosting your own runners".