act VS virtual-environments

When it comes to the alternatives to tmate, there is another great debugging tool that you could check out. It is called act and it allows you to run GitHub Actions code on your local machine making debugging even easier. It has its own limitations and some learning curve but overall it is another tool you should use if you can’t fix the CI bugs by connecting directly into the running action with the tmate.

Link: https://github.com/nektos/act

Could you upload your build of GitHub's runner image to Docker Hub?

This would be quite useful for users of other GitHub Actions clones like act [0].

[0]: https://github.com/nektos/act

> These kinds of commit messages are typically an indicator of a broken process where somebody needs to commit to see something happen, like a deployment or build process, and aren't able to assert that stuff works locally.

This is one of my biggest pet peeves with services like github actions. Something running locally like "act" [1] isn't sufficient because it doesn't have everything github has and is extra friction anyway to get everyone to use it for testing.

[1] https://github.com/nektos/act

View on GitHub

If you use Github actions, act is incredibly useful. It can be used to test your GH actions, but also serves as an interface for running tasks locally.

That's something that often is difficult or basically impossible. Except for maybe GitHub actions through Act (https://github.com/nektos/act). I'd still lean to something in the yaml sphere if it eventually would be used in deployment pipelines and such. For example a solution incorporating ansible.

It also seems to me that the argument you make is mostly focused on the building step? Earthly certainly seems focused on that aspect.

I feel I'm being trolled, but I'll bite and accept the resulting downvotes

I don't think treating every mention of act as an opportunity for airing of personal grievances is helpful in a discussion when there's already ample reports of people's concrete issues with it, had one looked at the 800 issues in its repo https://github.com/nektos/act/issues?q=is%3Aissue or the 239 from gitea's for https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner/issues or whatever is going on with Forgejo's fork https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/act .

But, as for me specifically, there are two and a half answers: I wanted to run VSCodium's build locally, which act for sure puked about. Then, while trying to troubleshoot that, I thought I'd try something simpler and have it run the lint job from act's own repo <https://github.com/nektos/act/blob/1252e551b8672b1e16dc8835d...> to rule out "you're holding it wrong" type junk. It died with

  [checks/lint]     Failure - Main actions/setup-go@v3

https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1720410479141487099 :

> GitHub Actions currently charges $0.16 per minute* for the macOS M1 Runners. That comes out to $84,096 for 1 machine year*

GitHub Runner is written in Go; it fetches tasks from GitHub Actions and posts the results back to the Pull Request that spawned the build.

nektos/act is how Gitea Actions builds GitHub Actions workflow YAML build definition documents. https://github.com/nektos/act

https://twitter.com/MatthewCroughan/status/17200423527675700... :

> This is the macOS Ventura installer running in 30 VMs, in 30 #nix derivations at once. It gets the installer from Apple, automates the installation using Tesseract OCR and TCL Expect scripts. This is to test the repeatability. A single function call `makeDarwinImage`.

With a Multi-Stage Dockerfile/Containerfild, you can have a dev environment like xcode or gcc+make in the first stage that builds the package, and then the second stage the package is installed and tested, and then the package is signed and published to a package repo / app store / OCI container image repository.

SLSA now specifies builders for signing things correctly in CI builds with keys in RAM on the build workers.

"Build your own SLSA 3+ provenance builder on GitHub Actions" https://slsa.dev/blog/2023/08/bring-your-own-builder-github

This action runs using Node 16. If you are using self-hosted GitHub Actions runners, you must use runner version 2.285.0 or newer.

This is the OS and version used for the virtual environment in which run our tests. I recommend always using a specific version, such as the latest stable version, rather than latest, which is risky because you may then suddenly start to see test failures caused by a version update that has nothing to do with your tests. See virtual-enviroments for the latest stable version.

This, I setup Azure DevOps pipeline that clones this: https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments Runs it in Linux servers, copies VHD into Storage Account, creates an image from it and makes it new image for Azure Scale Set. Runs every Monday Morning on timer.

I'm in a similar boat - love the performance/battery of my M1 MacBook Air, but the ecosystem is just too messy at the moment for me. I have a few tools I need to use that haven't yet been making official Apple Silicon releases due to GitHub actions not supporting Apple Silicon fully yet. The workaround involves maintaining two versions of homebrew, one for ARM and one for x86-64, and then being super careful to make sure you don't forget if you're working in an environment that's ARM and one that's X86. It's too much of a pain to keep straight for me (I admit it - I lack patience and am forgetful, so this is a bit of a "me" problem versus a tech problem).

My solution was to give up using my M1 mac for development work. It sits on a desk as my email and music machine, and I moved all my dev work to an x86 Linux laptop. I'll probably drift back to my mac if the tools I need start to properly support Apple Silicon without hacky workarounds, but until GitHub actions supports it and people start doing official releases through that mechanism, I'm kinda stuck.

It is interesting how much impact GitHub has had by not having Apple Silicon support. Just look at the ticket for this issue to see the surprisingly long list of projects that are affected. (See: https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/issues/2187)

https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/issues you can always request additional software to added to GitHub's machines, costs nothing to ask.

I'm not disputing your claim that it could be true as I say, it makes sense, there is even some evidence they are getting ready for feature parity as I said in my comment with the hosted agent builds but I am arguing the point with my "what aboutism" as it isn't clear.

Also Ubuntu 22.04 is not currently available on Github so I can't use CI for now - https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/issues/5428

As for M1 support, I’m still waiting for GitHub to add M1-based GitHub Actions runners (issue).

GitHub provides hosted runners which can run your workflow in different virtual environments. The "ubuntu-latest" environment already contains a recent version of Node.js which is ideal for testing JavaScript applications.

As mentioned in this GitHub issue, the issue seems to affect only windows-2022 image. You can use the following script to install .NETFramework 4.6.1 to the agent.