Using GitHub CI/Actions

[wesleytodd]

As mentioned in the last TC meeting, we are going to try out using GH actions for CI and automation stuff. I pushed the statusboard repo last night, and added a workflow config to test it. Here is an example run, in this case with passes and a failure:

PR: expressjs/statusboard#1
Failure: https://github.com/expressjs/statusboard/pull/1/checks?check_run_id=194817152
Pass: https://github.com/expressjs/statusboard/pull/1/checks?check_run_id=194817160

Example failure email:

The workflow is a yaml file .github/workflows/test.yml with the following contents:

name: Run Tests
on: [push, pull_request]
jobs:
  test:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    strategy:
      matrix:
        node-version: [8.x, 10.x, 12.x]
    steps:
    - uses: actions/checkout@v1
    - name: Use Node.js ${{ matrix.node-version }}
      uses: actions/setup-node@v1
      with:
        node-version: ${{ matrix.node-version }}
    - name: npm install and test
      run: |
        npm it

I just wanted to post this here to see if anyone had concerns of feedback before I start expanding this automation.

[mickeygousset]

It was mentioned in my closed PR on Azure Pipelines that there were a lot of smaller repos you might want to look at using GitHub Actions for. Is there any sort of priority of which repos you are interested in first? Or, if I wanted to work on this, should I just find one and see what I can do?

[wesleytodd]

Or, if I wanted to work on this, should I just find one and see what I can do?

This I think! That said, to save you time it might be good to align on a technical direction for this before you open them all. I am happy if we do this in the PR you opened today.

[dougwilson]

Once we have a pr when a conversation plan on any of the repos, we will have a clear thing to land in the others. I think the Express repo where it was opened is fine as that one has both linux and windows, where most smaller ones that do no file i/o just have linux.

[jonchurch]

Discussions continuing in #181