actions-runner-
| actions-runner- | test-ci-needs | |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | 1 | |
| - | - | |
| - | - | |
| - | - | |
| - | - | |
| - | - |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
actions-runner-
-
GitHub Packages and Pages Down
had the exact same thing with https://github.com/actions-runner-controller/actions-runner-...
-
GitHub Actions: Ephemeral self-hosted runners and new webhooks for auto-scaling
It's not official, but there are K8s / github actions runner deployments: https://github.com/actions-runner-controller/actions-runner-...
I've been playing about with this and it seems to work quite well. Startup latency is quite high, and it's one pod-per-job (I think), but seems pretty flexible.
-
GitHub Actions Limitations and Gotchas
We use https://github.com/actions-runner-controller/actions-runner-... to auto scale on EKS. It also allows you to use a GitHub App for the runner registration instead of personal access tokens. Also it seems like the project is receives support from GitHub because they’re getting early access to test out features.
test-ci-needs
-
GitHub Actions Limitations and Gotchas
Sorry, it was with `only:changes` and `needs`. Take a look at this issue[0] and this pipeline[1]. I've failed to find the failure mode in the documentation, so I suppose it may have been fixed since then - but we've developed an in-house workaround in the meantime that I'd trust a lot more than anything coming out from Gitlab.
--------
> A monorepo isn't "all but the most simple use-cases", it's usually a fairly complex usecase, and Gitlab have a myriad of ways to make monorepo CI easier - dynamic pipelines, remote triggers, includes, etc.
And every single feature you've mentioned here has a bug when combined with something else. That's the problem with Gitlab CI: everything works in isolation, but nothing composes properly.
Take includes: they don't work with anchors, so you couldn't have a generic template rules in the "main" file getting reused in the included files. This makes sense though! Anchors are a yaml feature. So gitlab added their own pseudo-anchors, called `extends`. You'd assume a smart, context-aware merge to happen, but no! Gitlab decided to go with a dumb object merge. Because the `script` step is a list of string, if both the parent and the child specify a `script`, only the child's will be used! Gitlab has a `before_script` step which can be used to workaround the issue for single levels of inheritance, but anything more complex ends up in a dead end. This feels like a feature that's been bolted on without any sort of design work.
[0]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/31310
[1]: https://gitlab.com/ensc/test-ci-needs/-/pipelines/78713602
What are some alternatives?
xmonad - The core of xmonad, a small but functional ICCCM-compliant tiling window manager
github-action-tester - Run tests when pull-requests are opened, or commits pushed.
github-act-runner - act as self-hosted runner
act - Run your GitHub Actions locally 🚀
actions-runner-controller - Kubernetes controller for GitHub Actions self-hosted runners
turnstyle - 🎟️A GitHub Action for serializing workflow runs
runner - The Runner for GitHub Actions :rocket:
jenkins-std-lib - Bringing the Zen of Python to Jenkins.
duckduckgo-locales - Translation files for <a href="https://duckduckgo.com"> </a>
roadmap - GitHub public roadmap