-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 825
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
Node packaging #1264
Node packaging #1264
Conversation
Build Failed 😱 Build Id: e89aff76-2ecf-46b2-8937-1034bc16c187 To get permission to view the Cloud Build view, join the agones-discuss Google Group. |
|
||
cd $AGONES_PATH/sdks/nodejs | ||
|
||
npm version $RELEASE_VERSION |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How/when does this script get run?
I think updating the version number should be a careful change and follow semver, so potentially even a manual step. Or are these variables automatically populated and the aim is to keep the package version the same as the release version? If that is the case then what will happen when there are no SDK changes and how do we still comply with semver?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK I've read #679 . Perhaps best to first focus on the publishing part and ensure it works and can look at again if we want to do version sync?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm happy to remove the version update. i was going to handle the release part - sounds like a check in the release checklist that we update the version (we can do this by hand?) would work.
So for this PR, we could drop the npm version $RELEASE_VERSION
command?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Correct. I only added that as a potential way to address an earlier comment from you @markmandel.
@steven-supersolid I believe the idea is to run this from release.mk
but I was going to leave that part to Mark.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good and it seems we keep the SDK version the same as the Agones version?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That was the intent... I took out the npm version
command for now though, we can always add it later if we want.
Ah, this did actually break a thing! We have a SDK test here: So we'll need to change the name there in this PR too for it to pass. We'll also need to update the nodejs example: So it's worth noting this is a breaking change, just because the package name has changed. Finally, we'll also need to update the documentation: (See https://agones.dev/site/docs/contribute/#within-a-page on how to have version specific documentation) |
I was planning on updating the docs, is this PR the best place to do it? Also, I'll add a fix to the test and remove the |
Yep this PR will be the perfect place - we love having it all in one spot. |
Build Failed 😱 Build Id: aa70138b-37b4-4129-b69f-2b33c3c800f9 To get permission to view the Cloud Build view, join the agones-discuss Google Group. |
Not sure how to solve these problems, but figured I'd find the relevant error message for you. Let me know if you need help running this test locally. |
Oh it won't work until published but we shouldn't publish until the tests all pass :) There is however another way for local testing using npm link. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, a bit of a catch 22. I was puzzling over the best approach to fix this.
I'll give your suggestion a try and see if that fixes the problem.
Build Succeeded 👏 Build Id: 994394b2-9682-48e9-ad16-5855113ceee8 The following development artifacts have been built, and will exist for the next 30 days:
A preview of the website (the last 30 builds are retained): To install this version:
|
Passing now! This LGTM - @steven-supersolid any issues on your end, or can I approve and merge? |
Oh I thought I already approved. LGTM |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh I thought I already approved. LGTM
Yep, just wanted to double check with the changes. LGTM!
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: markmandel, rorygarand, steven-supersolid The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
Build Succeeded 👏 Build Id: 01b7fe2d-33d7-4145-98f7-12ec12a82ee2 The following development artifacts have been built, and will exist for the next 30 days:
A preview of the website (the last 30 builds are retained): To install this version:
|
Adds a publish script to send the node sdk to the github package registry. Related to: googleforgames#679. Co-authored-by: Mark Mandel <mark.mandel@gmail.com>
Adds a publish script to send the node sdk to the github package registry.
Related to: #679.