Skip to content
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

Only lint modified files #47

Open
theoomoregbee opened this issue May 11, 2020 · 12 comments
Open

Only lint modified files #47

theoomoregbee opened this issue May 11, 2020 · 12 comments
Labels
blocked Waiting for changes in another project enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed

Comments

@theoomoregbee
Copy link

theoomoregbee commented May 11, 2020

I was going through the codebase to see how feasible to add this feature because we currently need it.

Suggestion

I was thinking of adding an extra param [linter]_only_changed_files: boolean (we can decide on the best name to go with).

Then checking doing a quick diff of the current branch with

FILES = git diff --diff-filter=$filter --name-only $baseBranch | grep -E $extensions

where:

I see you already swap branch for hasFork here: https://github.com/samuelmeuli/lint-action/blob/a820202c34156c11c68a7c534178ac66e12758b9/src/git.js#L22

We just need to do the same thing with the base repository:

  • check if it's a fork, if so fetch it and add it to maybe base-fork remote locally
  • else if it's not a fork, we don't need to fetch
  • with the above steps, we can easily infer the base remote and branch name

Don't know if this is what you want to support @samuelmeuli else I can spin up a PR for this.

@samuelmeuli wdyt?

@samuelmeuli samuelmeuli added the enhancement New feature or request label May 13, 2020
@samuelmeuli
Copy link
Collaborator

It would be great to have this working. I'm just not quite sure if this will work nicely with GitHub annotations (see #1).

In any case, this would be a follow-up to #46. It might also make sense to delegate the identification of modified files to another action (e.g. file-changes-action) and use that action's output as input for the [linter]_files option.

@samuelmeuli samuelmeuli added duplicate This issue or pull request already exists and removed enhancement New feature or request labels May 13, 2020
@samuelmeuli samuelmeuli changed the title feat: Support to run linting on only changed files "git diff" Only lint modified files May 13, 2020
@ozum
Copy link

ozum commented May 14, 2020

This should be optional, because if a lint rule is changed, it should lint all source files again for new rules whether those files changed or not.

@theoomoregbee
Copy link
Author

@samuelmeuli went through #1 will read on github annotation over the weekend and see if there's a possibility for getting this in.

In any case, this would be a follow-up to #46. It might also make sense to delegate the identification of modified files to another action (e.g. file-changes-action) and use that action's output as input for the [linter]_files option.

Nice fallback

@panda0603
Copy link

@theoomoregbee @samuelmeuli any progress on this issue? Thanks

@theoomoregbee
Copy link
Author

@theoomoregbee @samuelmeuli any progress on this issue? Thanks

We had a blocker kinda as mentioned in #1 but had not gotten free time to go over GitHub annotations yet to see if there's a way around it.

Will add it to my todo list for the week now and see if I can go over it on or before the weekend.

@theoomoregbee
Copy link
Author

Did some research regarding #1 and found a GitHub action that helps with annotation via a .json file: https://github.com/Attest/annotations-action.

They just released a new version of runner that helps with composite actions https://docs.github.com/en/actions/creating-actions/about-actions#composite-run-steps-actions

But it's not fully ready to support calling an action within another action yet (which I think is the main reason we need the composite action though lol actions/runner#646 (comment)

Here are the next steps for composite actions: actions/runner#646

When expected action within action is released, we can leverage

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

A stale label has been added to this issue because it has been open 15 days with no activity. To keep this issue open, add a comment within 5 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label May 27, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot closed this as completed Jun 1, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 11, 2021
@ocean90 ocean90 reopened this Feb 20, 2022
@ocean90 ocean90 added blocked Waiting for changes in another project enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed and removed duplicate This issue or pull request already exists stale labels Feb 20, 2022
@wearerequired wearerequired unlocked this conversation Feb 20, 2022
@shahyar
Copy link

shahyar commented Oct 26, 2022

I think the only issue is that the linting path is hard-coded to ".". If that were a parameter, then this whole task could be avoided. It would be up to the individual actions to determine how to fill that value.

I originally tried using [linter]_command_prefix, but because it's used in verifySetup, it isn't useful here. So, I put together a proof-of-concept of how this can be done. #533

  1. On a PR, you need the target branch (github.base_ref), and on push you need the last commit before the push commits were added (github.event.push.before). On other types of events, I don't know.
  2. The static lint method needs to stop pre-determining what files to use. In eslint, it uses ".". This is now a param.
  3. The static lint method also needs to know how to prefix just the command, so we can tell it to use git diff ... | xargs.
  4. We need to know what files were changed, and that's done with git diff -z --relative --diff-filter=ACMR --name-only $BASEHASH -- ....

Lastly, my example does not take into account changes to rules. If any of those files change, you'll want to trigger a complete lint rather than just changed files. This could be accomplished with dorny/paths-filter@v2, and using it to conditionally set only_changes_from.

Here's a sample config, linting a subdirectory:

    steps:
      # We need to check out the repo history... perhaps fetch-depth: 0 is not needed? TBD
      - name: Checkout repository
        uses: actions/checkout@v3
        with:
          fetch-depth: 0
          ref: ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.sha || github.sha }}

      # Also need to test if this is still necessary
      - run: |
          git fetch --no-tags --depth=1 origin ${{ github.event.pull_request.base.sha || github.event.push.before }}

      - name: Setup Node.js
        uses: actions/setup-node@v3
        with:
          node-version: 16
          cache: 'npm'
          cache-dependency-path: 'packages/foobar/package-lock.json'

      # Need to install eslint dependencies in the subdirectory (note in this example root/package.json must have eslint)
      - name: Install Node.js dependencies
        run: |
          npm ci
          cd packages/foobar && npm ci

      # Now actually lint by setting files to an empty string, and telling it to use the base hash to compare to
      - name: Lint packages/foobar
        uses: shahyar/lint-action@master
        with:
          only_changes_from: ${{ github.event.pull_request.base.sha || github.event.push.before }}
          eslint: true
          eslint_dir: packages/foobar/
          eslint_files: ""

@messers2
Copy link

Any news on this?

@shahyar
Copy link

shahyar commented Aug 28, 2023

This package is basically unmaintained. The only changes getting merged are new linters. You can see my draft PR above (forked at shahyar/lint-action@master) which adds the desired functionality to eslint and prettier.

@wesleyschlenker
Copy link

wesleyschlenker commented Mar 29, 2024

It's incredibly frustrating that annotations don't work, but thank you @shahyar for the fork you've made. I'm really hopeful that someone smarter than me can figure out a way to work around the check_run API limitations pointed out here.

Edit: it looks like maybe they figured it out over here https://github.com/tj-actions/eslint-changed-files

@lkraav
Copy link

lkraav commented Mar 30, 2024

Edit: it looks like maybe they figured it out over here https://github.com/tj-actions/eslint-changed-files

It's what we're using for eslint, but as stylelint was next, requiring similar mechanics, I started looking around for combo-linters, and ended up here. One thing's for sure: "only lint modified files" is a hard requirement.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
blocked Waiting for changes in another project enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants