-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 128
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
assets option is ambiguous with git plugin assets option #808
Comments
Includes the addition of a new option githubReleaseAssets to replace the old assets option. The assets option is identical to the option found in the git plugin but is ambiguous when used in shared configuration packages. Fixes: semantic-release#808
Includes the addition of a new option githubReleaseAssets to replace the old assets option. The assets option is identical to the option found in the git plugin but is ambiguous when used in shared configuration packages. Fixes: semantic-release#808
Includes the addition of a new option githubReleaseAssets to replace the old assets option. The assets option is identical to the option found in the git plugin but is ambiguous when used in shared configuration packages. Fixes: semantic-release#808
I can easily assume that this is how the configurations functions. I'd suggest we make this possible instead of a rename. I'm interested in understanding the initial thought process behind having the property named |
It isn't possible to have a single configuration option represent multiple settings. module.exports = {
assets: ['package.json', '*.md', '!**/node_modules/**'],
, plugins: [...]
} There is no way for me to define what gets added to a git commit independently from what is added to a github release without either losing extensibility, or introducing a good amount of complexity. |
I don't agree, or maybe don't yet understand why this is better module.exports = {
npmPublish: false,
releaseRules: [...],
changelogTitle: '## Changelog',
gitAssets: ['package.json', '*.md', '!**/node_modules/**'],
githubAssets: ['dist/*.tgz', 'coverage/*.json'],
plugins: [
['@semantic-release/commit-analyzer', null],
['@semantic-release/release-notes-generator', null],
['@semantic-release/changelog', null]
['@semantic-release/npm', null],
['@semantic-release/git']
['@semantic-release/exec', null],
['@semantic-release/github']
]
} Than this module.exports = {
npmPublish: false,
releaseRules: [...],
changelogTitle: '## Changelog',
assets: ['package.json', '*.md', '!**/node_modules/**']
plugins: [
['@semantic-release/commit-analyzer', null],
['@semantic-release/release-notes-generator', null],
['@semantic-release/changelog', null]
['@semantic-release/npm', null],
['@semantic-release/git']
['@semantic-release/exec', null],
['@semantic-release/github', {
assets: ['dist/*.tgz', 'coverage/*.json'] // <---- override
}]
]
} I think being able to define a global default and then override it on a plugin level is a feature, not a bug |
When you extend this as a shareable config, config that is defined at inline with the plugin rather than set globally, it requires the end user to redefine the entire plugin stack so the configuration still works correctly. Which isn't really feasible without being intimately familiar with all of the plugin settings and the setup of the config. // release-config-base62
module.exports = {
npmPublish: false,
releaseRules: [...],
changelogTitle: '## Changelog',
assets: ['package.json', '*.md', '!**/node_modules/**']
plugins: [
['@semantic-release/commit-analyzer', null],
['@semantic-release/release-notes-generator', null],
['@semantic-release/changelog', null]
['@semantic-release/npm', null],
['@semantic-release/git']
['@semantic-release/exec', null],
['@semantic-release/github', {
assets: ['dist/*.tgz', 'coverage/*.json'] // <---- we have to do this here because github assest rarely match git assets
}]
]
} Attempting to do this doesn't do what one would expect {
// package.json
"release": {
"extends": "base62"
, "assets": ["*.md", "package.json", "*.rocskec"]
}
} Not only does this not change the {
// package.json
"release": {
"extends": "base62"
, "plugins": [
['@semantic-release/commit-analyzer', null],
['@semantic-release/release-notes-generator', null],
['@semantic-release/changelog', null]
['@semantic-release/npm', null],
['@semantic-release/git']
['@semantic-release/exec', null],
['@semantic-release/github', {
"assets": ["*.md", "package.json", "*.rocskec"] // <---- override
}]
]
}
} If the base config introduces a new plugin or other such things, its a breaking change every time because everyone else now has to update the plugin list. Its confusing, brittle and not very extensible. I should be able to just set the 1 or 2 things and plainly understand which thing I'm changing. {
// package.json
"release": {
"extends": "base62"
, "gitAssets": ["*.md", "package.json", "*.rocskec", "**/*.lua"]
, "releaseAssets": ["dist/*.tgz", "coverage/*.json", "build/*"]
}
} |
Both the git plugin and github plugin have a configuration option named
assets
. When building out a shareable configuration, It is preferable to omit configuration inline with the plugin and define as much as possible in the top level of the release config so they can be overridden when the configuration is extended.This works rather well except when you use the git and github plugins together - the
assets
configuration is ambiguous meaning. In the above example, All.md
files will be included in both the release commit, and the files attached to the github release. if the value needs to be different between the two plugins, you have to define the plugin configuration inline, which makes it difficult to changeThis allows them to be different, But now you cannot really over ride these values individually with out modifying them both, or changing them in the actualy config package being exteded. Which mean people have to re-define the entire plugin change and re-create most of the default configuration shipped with the shared config. Which mostly defeats the purpose.
Ideally, these settings should be named differently to disambiguate them -
gitCommitAssets
andgithubReleaseAssets
.Something to this effect. It could initially be alternate value to allow the existing
assets
value to work if defined like it currently does.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: