Add Conventional Commit linter to CI

[KingMob]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 75.60%. Comparing base (5b275f3) to head (751a683).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #108   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   75.60%   75.60%           
=======================================
  Files          30       30           
  Lines        1496     1496           
  Branches       64       64           
=======================================
  Hits         1131     1131           
  Misses        301      301           
  Partials       64       64           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[KingMob]

@ships Can you check my GH Action, and let me know if I got the nix setup part right? I'm unclear on when I can use nix develop --command my-command and when I use nix develop --command bash -c "my-command"

I got a lot of 429 Too Many Requests errors until the cache filled up. Is there a way around that?

Finally, I ran nix flake update, but if I wanted to only add node v20, how would I add that to the flake.lock while leaving the other packages unchanged? I'd like to operate under the if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it principle when possible.

@zane I set the rules to match your existing style. Generally speaking, do you want this GH Action to warn people, or actually block merging? And are their other repos this should be applied to?

[zane]

@KingMob Thank you for this! It should block merging, and we should apply this to all the GenSQL / InferenceQL repos. Basically the ones that are already using this commit style.

[KingMob]

Basically the ones that are already using this commit style.

@zane OK, looks to me like Gen.clj, inference, publish, structure-learning, and GenSQL.Gen.clj.adapter. Umm,cloud-builders, yay or nay?

Edit: NM, I found Ulli's complete list in Notion.

[KingMob]

@ships Does the nix stuff look right? Do I need the bash -c or no?

[ships]

LGTM, commented on optional verbosity flag for human readers.

[ships]

Notably, there are also nodePackages available in nixpkgs that we currently don't use (preferring to make you npm install). But in theory we could add those packages here too. This change makes sense to me as is though.

[KingMob]

Ahh, I wasn't sure. I see it in nixpkgs now.

I feel like incompleteness is always such a problem. Like, if there's any package not available in nix, you have to fall back to package.json anyway, and then... what? Merges and conflicts? Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

[KingMob]

@zane After merging, I'd like to give it a bit of time, make sure it fits smoothly into our workflow, and then roll out to other repos after a week or two.