Skip to content

Use better names in CI and put checkgenerate into separate step#479

Open
timostamm wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
tstamm/better-workflow-names
Open

Use better names in CI and put checkgenerate into separate step#479
timostamm wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
tstamm/better-workflow-names

Conversation

@timostamm
Copy link
Member

@timostamm timostamm commented Mar 11, 2026

This renames workflows and jobs for better readability:

x

 

Other changes:

  • "Check generate" moves to a separate job to for faster feedback.
  • We drop step names because most steps already have self-explanatory names.
  • I couldn't see any reason why we check out with fetch-depth: 2, so this drops the setting to rely on the default.

Looks like branch protection rules need an update - I'll sort this out after review.

@github-actions
Copy link

The latest Buf updates on your PR. Results from workflow Buf CI / buf (pull_request).

BuildFormatLintBreakingUpdated (UTC)
✅ passed✅ passed✅ passed✅ passedMar 11, 2026, 6:23 PM

@timostamm timostamm marked this pull request as ready for review March 11, 2026 18:58
make checkgenerate
- run: make test-go
- run: make lint-go
- run: mkdir -p .tmp/bin && cp $(which buf) .tmp/bin/buf
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I realize that this is the existing behavior, but it feels somewhat weird to get the latest buf binary from (presumably?) buf-action with setup_only and sidestep the pinned buf in the Makefile, but probably fine in the sense that it shouldn't change generation/formatting anyway.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants