Update Dependencies - #35
Conversation
…/act with tweaks where necessary
…in nektos docker update
I assume this is just for testing, right? I didn't see anything in the code that forces usage of docker? And that's important because we support both DinD and bare host deployments for this.... As for the versioning scheme: It was meant to track the upstream version that it's based on with a suffix to indicate which internal iteration we are using. If this is truly switching off the gitea upstream as a base with the goal of using the I would either:
And once that's done and published, you can update the act_runner image to use this version and publish a new tag there (same versioning scheme should apply in that repo) |
schottra
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It feels like a lot of changes. Generally okay with it, but will need e2e verification with act_runner in deployed environments.
yes, this was an Considering that most of this code was pulled back in from |
Do a pass on dependency updates, biggest most important ones being the docker changes (new package, a lot of breaking interface changes). Gitea still hasn't made these changes, so needed to pull them in from nektos/act while trying to make sure I didn't undo any Gitea or AllSpice changes.
Test process:
I also updated a lot of dependencies in act_runner, linking
actusing this branch locally. Set up act_runner to run specifically using docker instead of host (since so much of this was docker related), set up a workflow that logged stuff from theallspicevalue and usingALLSPICEenvs in a locally running Hub. Confirmed in the workflow that the allspice specific changes were still available, and that there were no docker errorsNext steps:
After this has gone through review and is tagged, I will open a PR for the corresponding act_runner changes. Then do a full walkthrough with the new tags in a local docker compose setup to check on docker in docker, then will coordinate the updates to these new tags with infra