Skip to content

be more permissive by default #9

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 17, 2021
Merged

Conversation

anarcat
Copy link

@anarcat anarcat commented Mar 15, 2021

We stop failing on docs test by default, and avoid failing on linting warnings.

This is a matter of policy I guess, but since there's no way to modify the config short of committing to the repository, I figured I would share my own configurations. Ideally, those kind of site-local policies could be established without having to edit the worktree...

@anarcat anarcat marked this pull request as draft March 15, 2021 19:30
Copy link
Member

@cmeissner cmeissner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please change CHECK_PUPPET_DOCS back to enable. This should be solved at local environment.

@anarcat
Copy link
Author

anarcat commented Mar 16, 2021

Please change CHECK_PUPPET_DOCS back to enable. This should be solved at local environment.

how do you actually do this in this repo? it seems i necessarily have to fork the repo, or can we have configs not checked in?

@anarcat anarcat marked this pull request as ready for review March 16, 2021 18:41
@cmeissner
Copy link
Member

how do you actually do this in this repo? it seems i necessarily have to fork the repo, or can we have configs not checked in?

We solved this by a script in our control repo. Here you can modify all params by search and replace.

@anarcat anarcat requested a review from cmeissner March 16, 2021 18:54
@anarcat
Copy link
Author

anarcat commented Mar 16, 2021

We solved this by a script in our control repo. Here you can modify all params by search and replace.

isn't this the script that runs from your control repo? I think I don't understand. :)

@cmeissner
Copy link
Member

isn't this the script that runs from your control repo? I think I don't understand. :)

This are the local git hooks. To install it, we provide a script, which clone the repo and install the hooks. At this time modifications are possible.

@anarcat
Copy link
Author

anarcat commented Mar 16, 2021

This are the local git hooks. To install it, we provide a script, which clone the repo and install the hooks. At this time modifications are possible.

sorry for the multiple questions, but you basically patch the git worktree on deployment?

@cmeissner
Copy link
Member

The repository is intended to help developers of a control-repo to push only clean code. The nature of the hooks of this repo is that they are client-side hooks and have to be installed in .git/hooks directory.
The project in which we introduce these hooks had to decide to clone the repo directly to the hooks directory or to provide a way to install the hooks without the complete .git overhead. This is why we provide a skript in control-repo install-hooks.sh. This does the following:

  1. clone these repo to a temporary directory
  2. copy the scripts in place (.git/hooks)
  3. modify config.cfg as the policy requires

What this repo is not indended for it to use it at deployment time. Hopefully this make some things clear.

Copy link
Member

@cmeissner cmeissner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@cmeissner cmeissner merged commit a569995 into codeaffen:master Mar 17, 2021
@anarcat anarcat deleted the permissive branch March 17, 2021 12:46
@anarcat
Copy link
Author

anarcat commented Mar 17, 2021

What this repo is not indended for it to use it at deployment time. Hopefully this make some things clear.

interesting. this is definitely out of scope for this PR, but since you don't have issues enabled (and seem more active than the upstream), i'll dare ask more. :)

i'm surprised: there are definitely server-side hooks in here: pre-receive, update all run on deployment time, don't they?

anyways, i guess i should figure out a way to load an external config file so we don't have to modify the worktree, would you be open to such a PR?

@cmeissner
Copy link
Member

I transferred the repo to our open source org codeaffen here. I also activate discussions, where we can discuss further.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants