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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[CI] Workflow to validate the compatibility of MeshKit with Meshery Server #413

Closed
theBeginner86 opened this issue Nov 23, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed

[CI] Workflow to validate the compatibility of MeshKit with Meshery Server #413

theBeginner86 opened this issue Nov 23, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
area/ci Continuous integration | Build and release help wanted Extra attention is needed issue/stale Issue has not had any activity for an extended period of time kind/enhancement Improvement in current feature

Comments

@theBeginner86
Copy link
Member

theBeginner86 commented Nov 23, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Current Behavior

Currently, there isn't a workflow which checks the compatibility of MeshKit changes on PRs with latest Meshery Server backend code. And, maintainers and contributors have to manually check the compatibility.

Here compatibility refers to go.mod changes and different pkgs imported by different MeshKit clients like Meshery Server, mesheryctl etc.

Desired Behavior

  1. Create a workflow that can check the compatibility of changes in MeshKit.
  2. Workflow should run on each PR

For reference check recording at https://discuss.layer5.io/t/meshery-build-release-meeting-nov-9th-2023/4170

Resources

Alternatives / Additional Context
@theBeginner86 theBeginner86 added kind/enhancement Improvement in current feature help wanted Extra attention is needed area/ci Continuous integration | Build and release labels Nov 23, 2023
@theBeginner86 theBeginner86 changed the title [CI] Workflow that validates the compatibility of MeshKit with Meshery Server [CI] Workflow to validate the compatibility of MeshKit with Meshery Server Nov 23, 2023
@leecalcote Slack
Copy link
Member

Why a separate workflow?

@stale Stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jan 8, 2024

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the issue/stale Issue has not had any activity for an extended period of time label Jan 8, 2024
@stale Stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jan 20, 2024

This issue is being automatically closed due to inactivity. However, you may choose to reopen this issue.

@stale stale bot closed this as completed Jan 20, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
area/ci Continuous integration | Build and release help wanted Extra attention is needed issue/stale Issue has not had any activity for an extended period of time kind/enhancement Improvement in current feature
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@leecalcote @theBeginner86