-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 154
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: Temporarily disable the license report generation to speed up build #704
Conversation
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.
Approach that skip license-report
.github/workflows/link-validator.yml
Outdated
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ jobs: | |||
uses: coursier/[email protected] | |||
|
|||
- name: Create the Pekko site | |||
run: sbt -Dpekko.genjavadoc.enabled=true "Javaunidoc/doc; Compile/unidoc; docs/paradox" | |||
run: sbt -Dpekko.genjavadoc.enabled=true -Dpekko.genlicensereport.enabled=false "Javaunidoc/doc; Compile/unidoc; docs/paradox" |
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.
skip the license-report
page generation in link-validator step.
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.
As this is a ci, can we keep it? or we add a dedicated task for genlicensereport
a93ce8a
to
687d3f6
Compare
Looks like last CI has successfully passed. And since the PR was opened, every One more commit for documentation clarify. @pjfanning could you trigger the CI again? Thanks. |
I had another way of solving this issue which involved adding an
in Which makes this really annoying because a lot of time was spent on this :/ |
I have to say that this approach also crossed my mind initially. However, considering the additional maintenance cost of another repo, I have decided to abandon this solution for this issue and consider a simpler approach. This PR approach more than ignores license report files and could skip the task of license report generation, it can make PR checks run faster. In addition, maintaining a new repo could provide ongoing solutions for future issues that may arise. However, the biggest obstacle for me is the sustainability of maintaining an additional repo. Throughout my career, I have encountered situations where repositories were no longer updated due to a lack of maintenance personnel, such as Apache Common DButils. (It's just my stubborn mindset.) Anyway, I am willing to accept whichever solution is ultimately accepted because both of them address the problem. Best regards. |
So my biggest apprehension is the complexity of the build which this PR does increase, I have an overarching goal in my head to reduce to try and gradually simplify the sbt build (I haven't really formalized this yet) as I see that sbt's build complexity is creating a barrier of entry to those trying to contribute. The reduction of the build time I don't see as a critical priority in this specific case, also do note that there will be movement in the future to try and procure our own hardware. |
@mdedetrich Another viewpoint argues that those repo( Scala is not my primary language, but I still can make the commit like this PR. I acknowledge that the sbt build can be a bit complex, but also offers a lot of possibilities. Considering that sbt builds are not something that needs frequent changes, I believe it won't hinder those who are trying to contribute. Perhaps we can merge this PR first to avoid those annoying check failure. Once the PR for the other repo is merged and released, we can remove the redundant build task from this PR (This PR also includes a fix part for the broken links). Unless the repo of https://github.com/mdedetrich/site-link-validator was proceeding well. |
@mdedetrich any feedback of this issue will be great. |
4681235
to
0c964fe
Compare
0c964fe
to
35f2688
Compare
"links.md") | ||
|
||
val markdownFiles = if (CliOptions.generateLicenseReportEnabled.get) { | ||
markdownFilesBeforeLicense ++ Seq("license-report.md") ++ markdownFilesAfterLicense |
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 think we can add a paradoxFast
and paradoxFastBrowse
task which turn this off?
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.
Have tried those approach:
(Compile / paradox / javaOptions += "-Dpekko.genlicensereport.enabled=false")
(javaOptions += "-Dpekko.genlicensereport.enabled=false")
Compile / paradoxMarkdownToHtml / sourceGenerators := { (Compile / paradoxMarkdownToHtml / sourceGenerators).value.filterNot(_ == Paradox.licenseReportGeneratorTask.taskValue) }
Compile / paradoxMarkdownToHtml / sourceGenerators := { Seq.empty }
None of them can be filtered in the license report generated, will keep find a new approach tomorrow.
989218f
to
988c1c2
Compare
@Roiocam could I ask you to get an iCLA? https://www.apache.org/licenses/contributor-agreements.html It makes the team's life easier if regular contributors have iCLAs |
I was sent the ICLA submission on 2023/9/23, is any thing I have missed? |
@Roiocam thanks - I found your iCLA. |
So I am fine with this being a temporary fix but when sbt/sbt-license-report#87 is resolved I would suggest to revert this commit because there isn't any reason to have this feature disable i.e. its currently a workaround for that bug. This is because when sbt/sbt-license-report#87 is resolved, the |
Yes, that's why we still need another ISSUE #1019 to associate the problem.
No doubt it, this PR is just sugar for contributors now. |
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.
Okay I am going to approve it, would be good if @pjfanning and @He-Pin also looked at it. @Roiocam Can you make an standard issue to revert this PR once sbt/sbt-license-report#87 is solved so we don't forget.
Thanks for the work!
Yes, I will stay updated on the progress. |
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.
Thanks
@pjfanning Would you like to take a look at this, I think with this , all our contributors can have a faster local development exprirence. |
Motivation
Refs: original from #326 and #332, then #1019
This PR improves the speed of paradox build by disabling
sbt-license-report
on specific build.PTAL, @mdedetrich @He-Pin