feat!: add support for asdf >= 0.16 #590
Open
+68,377
−776
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds support for asdf >= 0.16, which has been rewritten from scratch in Go and is no longer simply cloneable from git. It does so by downloading the pre-built release from GitHub for the correct platform and architecture.
The change adds support for a new optional parameter,
asdf_version
, which can be used to set a specific version to download and install. If not provided, the latest release will be downloaded by default.I decided to add a new parameter because the existing one (
asdf_branch
) allows to specify not only a given version tag, but also any kind of branch. To support the same parameter with the rewritten asdf, the action should build asdf from source, but I don't think that's needed.As of today,
asdf_branch
can be used to download the older, bash-based versions of asdf, so it's still possible to use the actions with those versions by simply adding e.g.asdf_branch: v0.15.0
.Note that, even though the older asdf versions are still downloadable using the parameter above, by default the new behavior is used, so this will most probably need a major version bump.
Let me know if the implementation makes sense and/or if I missed something.
Fixes #587