paths-filter VS just

I also set up recently the policy to onl use merge commits on stable branch, as otherwise the path filter^1 in the workflows would not detect correctly which files changed in a PR.

[1] https://github.com/dorny/paths-filter

I truly don't understand why this isn't more widely discussed (I've seen several "GH Actions Gotchas" where this isn't mentioned). Many of the community actions also seem to be designed to run as short jobs to paper around missing features (for ex: https://github.com/dorny/paths-filter ), that end up eating up an enormous amount of your minutes budget.

If that isn’t sufficient, there are a number of third party workflow steps that enable conditional builds with extra flexibility like https://github.com/dorny/paths-filter

You can use paths-filter to give yourself a bunch of conditional outputs to test against for separate jobs.

That's brilliant. dorny/paths-filter looks like it can eliminate my enumerate job, and then I don't have to concern myself with all this data passing between jobs.

There’s an awkward gotcha/incompatibility between “Required status checks” and workflows that get skipped [1], eg due to setting a “paths” property of a push/pull_request workflow trigger [2].

The checks associated with the workflow don’t run and stay in a pending state, preventing the PR from being merged.

The only workaround I’m aware of is to use an action such as paths-filter [3] instead at the job level.

A further, related frustration/limitation - you can _only_ set the “paths” property [2] at the workflow level (i.e. not per-job), so those rules apply to all jobs in the workflow. Given that you can only build a DAG of jobs (ie “needs”) within a single workflow, it makes it quite difficult to do anything non trivial in a monorepo.

[1]: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/configuring-branches...

[2]: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-...

[3]: https://github.com/dorny/paths-filter

We are interested in running a linter only against the modified files. Let's say, we take a look at the provided repo, if I update dags/dummy.py I don't want to waste time and resources running the linter against main.py. For this purpose we use Paths Filter GitHub Action, which is very flexible.

In the spirit of the #ActionsHackathon21, you can see I'm taking advantage of the checkout action GitHub provides and the Paths Filter action by dorny to create the desired workflow. I'm also using the Gistblog Action I created for this hackathon which handles managing all the blog posts as Gists. I'd like to explore Composite actions soon to see if I can reduce all of this to a single action making setup even easier.

I don't like makefiles, but I've been enjoying justfiles: https://github.com/casey/just

I started using just [0] on my projects and have been very happy so far. It is very similar to make but focused on commands rather than build outputs.

Define your recipes and then you can compose them as needed.

[0] https://github.com/casey/just

just - https://github.com/casey/just

Welp there is absolute chaos in that thread -- guess it's not an April Fools joke.

I wonder if relying on CI for anything other than provisioning machines is a mistake -- maybe we should have never moved from doing things from local scripts written in $LANGUAGE.

That said, I'm probably biased since I'm a massive fan of things like `make` and more appropriately for the current age, `just`[0]

[0]: https://github.com/casey/just

> When a command has some cognitive requirements I create a script with some ${1:-default} values and I store them all in $PATH enabled local/bin

I would consider using just for this:

https://github.com/casey/just

Your coworker's experience is more principled: Make is a mediocre tool for executing commands. It wasn't ever designed for that. Although it is pretty common to see what you are mentioning in projects because it doesn't require installing a dependency.

For a repo where an easy to install (single binary) dependency is a non-issue, consider using just. [1] You get `just -l` where you can see all the command available, the ability to use different languages, and overall simpler command writing.

[1] https://github.com/casey/just

This is fantastic, but I'd say that this solution is somewhat in response to this open issue from 2019:

https://github.com/casey/just/issues/429

I really wish just was included as a package in distributions.

So far, I didn't work on new features at all but on stabilizing the ground for further development: 1. CMake lists and modules were rewritten a lot, now managing builds and their configurations is much lesser pain. 2. Brought in Justfile for regular tasks, and it's great, no less. 3. Linters, formatters, analyzers for almost all the code (except for Janet for now, as because of it being a niche and young technology, it didn't get enough attention yet). 4. ECS stub. Now runtime class doesn't look like a god object. 5. Started writing unit tests which didn't happen with my personal projects before and maybe indicates how serious am I about this one :D 6. Some of previously hardcoded data has been moved to INI files. Now, if I release the game in 10 years, and in 10 more years some eccentric person decides to make a variant of it, it will be slightly simpler.

i've grown to like this for my personal projects. https://github.com/casey/just