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

misc(build): disable fail-fast on gh basics workflow #10551

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 9, 2020
Merged

Conversation

paulirish
Copy link
Member

If lint fails, do we want the workflow to continue and run unit tests?
Or should it just immediately give the red X feedback?

I'm fine with both, just wanted to ask folks what they think.

@paulirish paulirish requested a review from a team as a code owner April 6, 2020 20:01
@paulirish paulirish requested review from exterkamp and removed request for a team April 6, 2020 20:01
@patrickhulce
Copy link
Collaborator

I like the idea of running the rest so you can fix all the failures, but I don't feel strongly

@brendankenny
Copy link
Member

If lint fails, do we want the workflow to continue and run unit tests?

I think it generally depends on the test, but at least for the current basics tests it would be probably be more useful to continue even with failures.

That may change if it's as hard to get a machine to run our actions on as it is with travis, and/or if basics gets heavier and heavier (e.g. #10549 and #10550 :)

Copy link
Member

@exterkamp exterkamp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@paulirish paulirish changed the title build: disable fail-fast on gh basics workflow misc(build): disable fail-fast on gh basics workflow Apr 9, 2020
@paulirish paulirish merged commit 159fd93 into master Apr 9, 2020
@paulirish paulirish deleted the basicstweak branch April 9, 2020 20:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants