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.

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

Repo Changes Breaking Runiac Build #5

Open
tiny-dancer opened this issue Feb 26, 2022 · 11 comments
Open

Repo Changes Breaking Runiac Build #5

tiny-dancer opened this issue Feb 26, 2022 · 11 comments
Assignees

Comments

@tiny-dancer
Copy link
Contributor

If there was a change recently to require pull requests and approval for this repo it has broken runiac release automation:

⨯ release failed after 185.47s error=homebrew tap formula: failed to publish artifacts: PUT [api.github.com/repos/optum/homebrew-tap/contents/Formula/runiac.rb:](https://api.github.com/repos/optum/homebrew-tap/contents/Formula/runiac.rb:) 409 Could not update file: At least 1 approving review is required by reviewers with write access. []
Error: The process '/opt/hostedtoolcache/goreleaser-action/1.5.0/x64/goreleaser' failed with exit code 1

https://github.com/Optum/runiac/runs/5345432758?check_suite_focus=true

@amyschoen
Copy link
Member

@tiny-dancer, I have not updated anything recently, but I can take a look.

@amyschoen
Copy link
Member

It looks like @PseudoCoding added branch protection on this repo on Jan 24. What are you doing with regards to release automation where you're either not going through PRs or aren't having them approved?

@tiny-dancer
Copy link
Contributor Author

The update to the homebrew file in this repo is entirely performed via goreleaser, a release automation library for golang.

@tiny-dancer
Copy link
Contributor Author

https://goreleaser.com/customization/homebrew/

Ideally we wouldn’t add a human layer into an automated action.

@amyschoen
Copy link
Member

Is it being run under an admin user? If that's the case, we can just uncheck the box to include admins in branch protection.

@tiny-dancer
Copy link
Contributor Author

Good question, I think it was a token you provided? If you could provide a new token that matches admin can update accordingly

@amyschoen
Copy link
Member

That's an admin token. Just unchecked Include admins in the branch protection. Let me know if your workflow is working again now.

@tiny-dancer
Copy link
Contributor Author

@amyschoen FYI the build still failed

@mkrouse
Copy link

mkrouse commented Jan 19, 2023

@amyschoen - I'm trying to get runiac development going again since MGs departure. I've got our release pipeline working now and I'm trying to troubleshoot the homebrew file automation that @tiny-dancer mentioned above. Can you verify if the token is still valid?

I'm not seeing any obvious errors in the goreleaser-cli job indicating that this is failing. Unfortunately, its been a while since that last successful release (0.0.11) and I cannot view the previous logs to see what it looked like before.

@amyschoen
Copy link
Member

I'm guessing you're referring to this workflow @mkrouse:

https://github.com/Optum/runiac/blob/main/.github/workflows/release.yml

I see references to secrets.RUNIAC_PAT, secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN and secrets.GIT_TOKEN.

The second one doesn't exist. The first and third ones are local and might have stopped working as expected when folks left. I suggest using the secrets set up at the org level - secrets.GIT_COMMITTER_TOKEN in lieu of the second two. We have secret.DOCKER_HUB_USERNAME and secret.DOCKER_HUB_PASSWORD set up to publish to Docker Hub.

@aksmo
Copy link
Contributor

aksmo commented May 9, 2024

@amyschoen I had this working on a previous release for runiac, the last release failed again, looks like branch permissions were added back, I did enable it via the PR route but looks to be a lot more steps which goes against the automation.

image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants