Conversation
We do not have Node.JS applications but this workflow just checks if it can build the Javascript frontend using `npm build`. This should reduce confusion about the workflows intend. Signed-off-by: Ferdinand Thiessen <opensource@fthiessen.de>
| @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ | |||
| # SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2021-2024 Nextcloud GmbH and Nextcloud contributors | |||
| # SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT | |||
|
|
|||
| name: Node | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the name here is fine, just the summary name must not change.
We could simply try it in an app with compiled assets.
The problematic part is that everyone updates workflows by copying them files misisng files are skipped.
I think we should keep a node.yml for some time that simply makes red CI and tells you to use npm-build.yml going forward
|
Would be nice to add that rename to the workflow-update workflow |
| @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ | |||
| # SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2021-2024 Nextcloud GmbH and Nextcloud contributors | |||
| # SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT | |||
|
|
|||
| name: Node | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the name here is fine, just the summary name must not change.
We could simply try it in an app with compiled assets.
The problematic part is that everyone updates workflows by copying them files misisng files are skipped.
I think we should keep a node.yml for some time that simply makes red CI and tells you to use npm-build.yml going forward
4 participants
Nodeworkflow #667We do not have Node.JS applications but this workflow just checks if it can build the Javascript frontend using
npm build. This should reduce confusion about the workflows intend.