Update appveyor.yml #422
Closed
Update appveyor.yml #422
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Reviewer's Guide by SourceryThis pull request updates the appveyor.yml file to fix a bug in the artifact naming. The filenames of the generated artifacts are changed to include the build version. Flow diagram for updated AppVeyor artifact naming processgraph TD
A[Start Build Process] --> B[Build Projects]
B --> C[After Build]
C --> D[For Each Version]
D --> E[Create Core ZIP Archive]
E --> F[Push Core Artifact]
D --> G[For Each Project]
G --> H[Create Project ZIP Archive]
H --> I[Push Project Artifact]
subgraph Changes
E --> |New Format|J[filename.Core.version.buildversion.zip]
style J fill:#e6ffe6
end
File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
gstraccini
bot
added
the
☑️ auto-merge
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. WalkthroughThe pull request involves modifications to the Changes
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![gstraccini[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/480132?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
github-actions
bot
added
the
size/XS
![korbit-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/322216?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've completed my review and didn't find any issues.
Need a new review? Comment
/korbit-reviewon this PR and I'll review your latest changes.Korbit Guide: Usage and Customization
Interacting with Korbit
- You can manually ask Korbit to review your PR using the
/korbit-reviewcommand in a comment at the root of your PR.- You can ask Korbit to generate a new PR description using the
/korbit-generate-pr-descriptioncommand in any comment on your PR.- Too many Korbit comments? I can resolve all my comment threads if you use the
/korbit-resolvecommand in any comment on your PR.- Chat with Korbit on issues we post by tagging @korbit-ai in your reply.
- Help train Korbit to improve your reviews by giving a 👍 or 👎 on the comments Korbit posts.
Customizing Korbit
- Check out our docs on how you can make Korbit work best for you and your team.
- Customize Korbit for your organization through the Korbit Console.
Current Korbit Configuration
General Settings
Setting Value Review Schedule Automatic excluding drafts Max Issue Count 10 Automatic PR Descriptions ✅ Issue Categories
Category Enabled Naming ✅ Database Operations ✅ Documentation ✅ Logging ✅ Error Handling ✅ Systems and Environment ✅ Objects and Data Structures ✅ Readability and Maintainability ✅ Asynchronous Processing ✅ Design Patterns ✅ Third-Party Libraries ✅ Performance ✅ Security ✅ Functionality ✅ Feedback and Support
Note
Korbit Pro is free for open source projects 🎉
Looking to add Korbit to your team? Get started with a free 2 week trial here
|
Infisical secrets check: ✅ No secrets leaked! 💻 Scan logs2:18AM INF scanning for exposed secrets...
2:18AM INF 360 commits scanned.
2:18AM INF scan completed in 304ms
2:18AM INF no leaks found
|
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @guibranco - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!
Here's what I looked at during the review
- 🟢 General issues: all looks good
- 🟢 Security: all looks good
- 🟢 Testing: all looks good
- 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
- 🟢 Documentation: all looks good
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
|
|
❌ Build VTEX-SDK-dotnet 2.4.368 failed (commit 5d91cab1cd by @guibranco) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
📑 Description
Update appveyor.yml
✅ Checks
☢️ Does this introduce a breaking change?
Summary by Sourcery
Update the build artifacts naming scheme.
Enhancements:
CI:
Description by Korbit AI
What change is being made?
Correct the zip file naming convention in appveyor.yml by removing an unnecessary colon before the
.zipextension.Why are these changes being made?
The presence of an unnecessary colon was causing issues with the artifact naming and subsequent management in AppVeyor, potentially impacting automation and integrations. Removing the colon aligns the file naming format with standard practices, ensuring compatibility and reducing potential errors.
Summary by CodeRabbit