Add CI to validate proto compilation #59
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @AlonLStarkWare)
.github/workflows/starknet_p2p_specs_ci.yml line 41 at r1 (raw file):
sudo apt-det install -y protobuf-compiler - name: Validate .proto files for Rust compatibility
Add a stage for go
If you can't find the go protoc, erase all of these and keep just c
.github/workflows/starknet_p2p_specs_ci.yml line 42 at r1 (raw file):
- name: Validate .proto files for Rust compatibility run: protoc --rust_out=/dev/null **.proto
Add a flag to make warnings into errors
.github/workflows/starknet_p2p_specs_ci.yml line 43 at r1 (raw file):
- name: Validate .proto files for Rust compatibility run: protoc --rust_out=/dev/null **.proto
remove spaces
* add quotations on main branch name * cr * testing changes * cleaning up and swaping to Noelware proto instead of installing * test protoc version * add missing syntax on capabilities.proto * attempting to fix compilation errors * adding Classes message to snapshot.proto * experimental-codegen * kernel * temp file instead of /dev/null * package transaction duplication * disable java compilation * remove package declaration * install protoc-gen-go before compiling to go * add option go_package specification * clean up * testing find *.proto * find proto step * compiling each file seperatly * apply changes to all compilations * clean comments
AlonLStarkWare
force-pushed
the
alonl/add_ci_to_compile_proto
branch
from
5a3dc54 to
5aba343
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 0 of 16 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ShahakShama)
.github/workflows/starknet_p2p_specs_ci.yml line 41 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, ShahakShama wrote…
Add a stage for go
If you can't find the go protoc, erase all of these and keep just c
Done.
.github/workflows/starknet_p2p_specs_ci.yml line 42 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, ShahakShama wrote…
Add a flag to make warnings into errors
Done.
.github/workflows/starknet_p2p_specs_ci.yml line 43 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, ShahakShama wrote…
remove spaces
Done.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 16 of 16 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @AlonLStarkWare)
-- commits line 1 at r2:
Don't forget to squash the PR
p2p/proto/state.proto line 1 at r2 (raw file):
syntax = "proto3";
Do not rename this file
.github/workflows/starknet_p2p_specs_ci.yml line 24 at r2 (raw file):
- name: Checkout repo uses: actions/checkout@v4
Erase spaces
.github/workflows/starknet_p2p_specs_ci.yml line 73 at r2 (raw file):
- name: Success Message run: echo "All proto compilations passed!"
Please make sure that the terms "proto compilation" and "Compiling file" are commonly used on proto files
AlonLStarkWare
force-pushed
the
alonl/add_ci_to_compile_proto
branch
from
e4c7bff to
fe408de
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 14 of 16 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ShahakShama)
.github/workflows/starknet_p2p_specs_ci.yml line 24 at r2 (raw file):
Previously, ShahakShama wrote…
Erase spaces
Done.
.github/workflows/starknet_p2p_specs_ci.yml line 73 at r2 (raw file):
Previously, ShahakShama wrote…
Please make sure that the terms "proto compilation" and "Compiling file" are commonly used on proto files
I removed the success message all together, the "Compiling file" can be removed as well IMO, I added them during debugging to make sure it goes over all of the files and just kept it. WDYT?
p2p/proto/state.proto line 1 at r2 (raw file):
Previously, ShahakShama wrote…
Do not rename this file
Done.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @AlonLStarkWare)
.github/workflows/starknet_p2p_specs_ci.yml line 73 at r2 (raw file):
Previously, AlonLStarkWare (Alon-Lukatch-Starkware) wrote…
I removed the success message all together, the "Compiling file" can be removed as well IMO, I added them during debugging to make sure it goes over all of the files and just kept it. WDYT?
It's useful, you should keep the print. Just check what's the correct term for running protoc on a file. If you can't find, change the print to "Running protoc on $file"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @AlonLStarkWare)
.github/workflows/starknet_p2p_specs_ci.yml line 1 at r3 (raw file):
name: Starknet-P2p-Specs-CI
Rename this file to ci.yml
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ShahakShama)
.github/workflows/starknet_p2p_specs_ci.yml line 73 at r2 (raw file):
Previously, ShahakShama wrote…
It's useful, you should keep the print. Just check what's the correct term for running protoc on a file. If you can't find, change the print to "Running protoc on $file"
I was able to find some usages of this term so I kept it as Compiling file
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status:
complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @AlonLStarkWare)
This change is