CI for docs updates and PRs #3

caesar commented 2023年08月15日 16:46:56 +02:00

Similar to the current forgejo/website repo, the CI should be run on commits to the next and version branches to publish to the live site, and previews should be generated for PRs.

We could probably just trigger the current website CI with a webhook from this repo, but it would need to post the preview comments here instead of there in the case of PRs to this repo.

Alternatively maybe it's a good time to switch to Forgejo Actions?

The CI is not my area of expertise so I'd love input from @dachary, @earl-warren, @crystal, and anyone else who wants to make any suggestions.

Similar to the current [forgejo/website](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website) repo, the CI should be run on commits to the `next` and version branches to publish to the live site, and previews should be generated for PRs. We could probably just trigger the current website CI with a webhook from this repo, but it would need to post the preview comments here instead of there in the case of PRs to this repo. Alternatively maybe it's a good time to switch to Forgejo Actions? The CI is not my area of expertise so I'd love input from @dachary, @earl-warren, @crystal, and anyone else who wants to make any suggestions.

crystal commented 2023年08月15日 18:02:38 +02:00

I have not spent much time with Forgejo Actions and I find the pipeline definitions somewhat confusing. Afaic Woodpecker works great and we can keep using it indefinitely. I won't object if others want to move things over.

For pull requests, we will need to get a little creative, since the docs depend upon the website sources to compile, we will need to clone the website repo and it's submodules, merge the pull request into the submodule for the target branch, compile it, and push the result to a preview branch in forgejo/pages.

As for rebuilding the production website when something gets merged, there are multiple approaches we could take. We could employ a similar strategy to the one outlined above, or we could simply make this repo's pipeline trigger a rebuild of the other repo's pipeline. It should be simple to do this with Woodpecker's API, but we will need to have an API token for Woodpecker as a secret.

I have not spent much time with Forgejo Actions and I find the pipeline definitions somewhat confusing. Afaic Woodpecker works great and we can keep using it indefinitely. I won't object if others want to move things over. For pull requests, we will need to get a little creative, since the docs depend upon the website sources to compile, we will need to clone the website repo and it's submodules, merge the pull request into the submodule for the target branch, compile it, and push the result to a preview branch in forgejo/pages. As for rebuilding the production website when something gets merged, there are multiple approaches we could take. We could employ a similar strategy to the one outlined above, or we could simply make this repo's pipeline trigger a rebuild of the other repo's pipeline. It should be simple to do this with Woodpecker's API, but we will need to have an API token for Woodpecker as a secret.

earl-warren commented 2023年08月15日 21:29:25 +02:00

Afaic Woodpecker works great and we can keep using it indefinitely.

I disagree. It has been a lot of work to get it working and stable end of last year. I'm not eager to keep doing that on the long run.

> Afaic Woodpecker works great and we can keep using it indefinitely. I disagree. It has been a lot of work to get it working and stable end of last year. I'm not eager to keep doing that on the long run.

crystal commented 2023年08月15日 21:52:26 +02:00

That's fair. I have been using upstream Woodpecker with the Gitea driver. I think you were doing good work on the Forgejo driver and I'm very disappointed that the Woodpecker maintainers flatly refused to merge it.

That's fair. I have been using upstream Woodpecker with the Gitea driver. I think you were doing good work on the Forgejo driver and I'm very disappointed that the Woodpecker maintainers flatly refused to merge it.

earl-warren commented 2023年08月15日 21:54:30 +02:00

It turned out well in the end though: if I had been more involved in Woodpecker there would have been less energy spent on Forgejo Actions.

It turned out well in the end though: if I had been more involved in Woodpecker there would have been less energy spent on Forgejo Actions.

earl-warren commented 2023年08月16日 06:51:26 +02:00

An issue was created Forgejo side to track the progress of having secrets in PRs. forgejo/forgejo#1278

An issue was created Forgejo side to track the progress of having secrets in PRs. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1278

caesar commented 2023年08月17日 15:22:30 +02:00

The CI is working well for previews, but it doesn't generate a comment with the preview link. It would be great to add that. (I'm happy to try doing that later.)

The CI is working well for previews, but it doesn't generate a comment with the preview link. It would be great to add that. (I'm happy to try doing that later.)

crystal commented 2023年08月17日 16:39:48 +02:00

Does the token have the issue:write scope required to post comments?

Does the token have the `issue:write` scope required to post comments?

caesar commented 2023年08月17日 17:02:52 +02:00

Does the token have the issue:write scope required to post comments?

Looks like it doesn't, so we'll have to generate a new token.

> Does the token have the `issue:write` scope required to post comments? Looks like it doesn't, so we'll have to generate a new token.

Ghost commented 2023年08月17日 18:44:26 +02:00

I re-created a token with the issue:write scope.

image

And replaced the WEBSITETOKEN secret with it in this repository

image

I re-created a token with the issue:write scope.  And [replaced the WEBSITETOKEN secret with it in this repository](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs/settings/actions/secrets) 

crystal commented 2023年08月17日 19:44:59 +02:00

Thanks for doing that @dachary . I think that's pretty much it for this issue, unless there's something I'm missing?

Thanks for doing that @dachary . I think that's pretty much it for this issue, unless there's something I'm missing?

caesar commented 2023年08月17日 23:03:50 +02:00

Thanks @dachary.
Yes, I think we can close this now.

Thanks @dachary. Yes, I think we can close this now.