Skip to content

Conversation

paul-sachs
Copy link
Collaborator

@paul-sachs paul-sachs commented Jul 2, 2025

This is a modified version of a local script i've been using for a few releases. Hasn't been tested as an action yet so we'll need a new release to validate.

New workflows for release management:

Prepare Release Workflow:

  • Added .github/workflows/prepare-release.yml to automate the creation of draft releases, release branches, and pull requests for new versions. Includes support for potential release/hotfix base branches in the case of a backport fix. To create a backport, we'll just need to create a branch for the target base version (release/v1.x) and set the base branch for the action.

Publish Release Workflow:

  • Added .github/workflows/publish-release.yml to handle the publication of merged release pull requests, including publishing to npm, updating GitHub release notes

Update Fixed Issues Workflow:

  • Added .github/workflows/updated-fixed-issues.yml to comment on fixed issues.

Signed-off-by: Paul Sachs <[email protected]>
@paul-sachs paul-sachs requested a review from timostamm July 2, 2025 21:05
@paul-sachs
Copy link
Collaborator Author

After this is merged, I can run it through some dry runs of the first prepare stage which can be considered a noop if the branch is closed with accepting.

Signed-off-by: Paul Sachs <[email protected]>
Comment on lines 37 to 44
- name: Validate semver version
run: |
if ! echo "${{ inputs.version }}" | grep -E '^[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+(-[a-zA-Z0-9]+(\.[a-zA-Z0-9]+)*)?(\+[a-zA-Z0-9]+(\.[a-zA-Z0-9]+)*)?$'; then
echo "Error: '${{ inputs.version }}' is not a valid semver version"
echo "Expected format: MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH (e.g., 1.2.3) or with pre-release/build metadata (e.g., 1.2.3-alpha.1+build.1)"
exit 1
fi
echo "✓ Version '${{ inputs.version }}' is valid semver"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wonder if we can roll this check into the setversion script. It already uses a similar regex, and IMO it would be beneficial to have only a single piece of code checking the version number.

If the step for setversion moves up, this should work out, right?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actually, looking at the set-workspace-version.js file, this is not necessary. We are already checking the incoming version and in fact don't allow things like "rc" releases so I'll just remove this entirely and defer to setversion

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In protovalidate-es, set-workspace-version.js was crudely modified to accept RC versions. Would be nice to improve the regex a bit with what you have here, and also improve the error handling so that it returns a more helpful message.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@paul-sachs paul-sachs Sep 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure. I've updated set-workspace-version.js to have an improved regexp and also add an error specifically if the version is invalid. Should be sufficient for now.

Instead of what I have here, I used regex from here instead.

env:
GH_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}

- name: Comment on fixed issues
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Comments on fixed issues with a link to the release are great. But I think we'll have an easier time landing the release automation in all repositories if we decouple this step from the release workflow. For example, by putting into into a separate workflow we can adopt separately.

- Moved to npm ci
- Split issue updates into a distinct action
- Removed unnecessary registry option on publish setup

Signed-off-by: Paul Sachs <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Paul Sachs <[email protected]>
@paul-sachs
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Actually, looking a little more into this, we probably want to integrate trusted publishing instead of using a token. Will need to investigate what that means here but i think it's a better way than using a long lived token.

Signed-off-by: Paul Sachs <[email protected]>
@paul-sachs
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Alright, updated. After a little bit of click ops on each package, following these instructions, we no longer need a token and we get providence and everything.

Also removed update fixed issues action which wouldn't trigger
since the triggering event is a github action and github actions
prevents cascading actions.

Signed-off-by: Paul Sachs <[email protected]>
@paul-sachs
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Confirmed working in this repo: https://github.com/paul-sachs/npm-publish-test. Some minor adjustments have been made to fix cleanup and I've removed the fixed issues action since it wasn't triggering as a cascading action (github prevents cascading actions).

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