-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
chore: remove make tfgen from goreleaser #159
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Oscar Cobles <[email protected]>
Does the PR have any schema changes?Does the PR have any schema changes?Looking good! No breaking changes found. Maintainer note: consult the runbook for dealing with any breaking changes. |
.goreleaser.yml
Outdated
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ archives: | |||
name_template: "{{ .Binary }}-{{ .Tag }}-{{ .Os }}-{{ .Arch }}" | |||
before: | |||
hooks: | |||
- make tfgen | |||
- make only_tfgen |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was referring to
pulumi-equinix/.github/workflows/release.yml
Lines 60 to 61 in 2146471
- name: Build tfgen binary | |
run: make only_tfgen |
So it looks like we run make only_tfgen
, create the GH release, and then run make tfgen
again via goreleaser? In that case I think we could remove this hook entirely.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yep I think you're right
Signed-off-by: Oscar Cobles <[email protected]>
we need #159 merged before this one to make sure that no new changes are discovered during the release process (the `toolchain go1.22.6` in go.mod in the examples depends on the go version installed locally. In my case I have 1.22.5 while in the GH action we have 1.22.x so it can take a newer version) --------- Signed-off-by: Oscar Cobles <[email protected]>
This PR is included in version 0.15.0 🎉 |
Themake tfgen
target currently generate examples and that step is not necessary at all here since we only want to generate the providerRemoved entirely as per comment #159 (comment)
This comes from the discussion in #152 (comment)