Test-ci-needs Alternatives

Similar projects and alternatives to test-ci-needs

gitlab

448 - - test-ci-needs VS gitlab
act

146 50,182 9.2 Go test-ci-needs VS act

Run your GitHub Actions locally 🚀
InfluxDB

www.influxdata.com sponsored

Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
xmonad

76 3,238 7.8 Haskell test-ci-needs VS xmonad

The core of xmonad, a small but functional ICCCM-compliant tiling window manager
roadmap

67 7,698 0.0 test-ci-needs VS roadmap

GitHub public roadmap
cache

40 4,264 7.2 TypeScript test-ci-needs VS cache

Cache dependencies and build outputs in GitHub Actions
actions-runner-controller

31 4,237 9.1 Go test-ci-needs VS actions-runner-controller

Kubernetes controller for GitHub Actions self-hosted runners
jenkins-std-lib

14 48 0.0 Groovy test-ci-needs VS jenkins-std-lib

Bringing the Zen of Python to Jenkins.
WorkOS

workos.com sponsored

The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
github-action-tester

1 26 0.0 Shell test-ci-needs VS github-action-tester

Run tests when pull-requests are opened, or commits pushed.
actions-runner-

3 - - test-ci-needs VS actions-runner-
turnstyle

2 286 2.3 TypeScript test-ci-needs VS turnstyle

🎟️A GitHub Action for serializing workflow runs
ghat

1 263 5.0 TypeScript test-ci-needs VS ghat

🛕 Reuse GitHub Actions workflows across repositories

NOTE: The number of mentions on this list indicates mentions on common posts plus user suggested alternatives. Hence, a higher number means a better test-ci-needs alternative or higher similarity.

Suggest an alternative to test-ci-needs

test-ci-needs reviews and mentions

Posts with mentions or reviews of test-ci-needs. We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives and similar projects. The last one was on 2021-09-08.

GitHub Actions Limitations and Gotchas
19 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 8 Sep 2021

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

Stats

Basic test-ci-needs repo stats

Mentions

Stars

Activity

Last Commit

Popular Comparisons