45cbdef9308f8adfcc7e1c5c53971e4d00a5b59c
3 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Paul Rastoin
|
29747f5d6b |
ci: report required status checks on merge_group so the queue isn't blocked (#23275)
Follow-up to #23216, which added the `merge_group`-triggered `upgrade-mutation-guard`. This makes the merge queue actually usable. ## Why The merge queue waits for every **required status check** to report a conclusion on the `merge_group` candidate commit, and there is no queue-only subset: it uses the branch's required status checks. Our required `ci-*-status-check` contexts only trigger on `pull_request`, so on a queued PR they sit at "Expected - Waiting for status to be reported" and block the queue until the status-check timeout (60 min), which then counts them as failed. Only `upgrade-mutation-guard` (from #23216) triggers on `merge_group`, so today it is the only check that reports in the queue. ## What Add a `merge_group` trigger to each of the seven required-check workflows and short-circuit the expensive work so the check reports success in seconds, while the full suite keeps running on `pull_request` to gate PRs. `upgrade-mutation-guard` stays the only check the queue genuinely validates against `main`. Mechanism: on `merge_group` the root jobs skip, everything downstream cascades to `skipped`, and the `always()`-gated `*-status-check` job runs, sees no failing needs, and succeeds. Kept as the same job in the same workflow so the required-check context is byte-identical to the PR-level one (a separate pass-through workflow could register a different context and not satisfy branch protection). Per workflow: - **ci-front**: trigger only. It already cascades - `changed-files-check` is `pull_request`-only and `front-sb-build` gates on `push || any_changed`, so nothing runs on `merge_group`. - **ci-server**: trigger + `if: github.event_name != 'merge_group'` on the three ungated root jobs (`changed-files-check`, `upgrade-changed-files-check`, `server-previous-version-upgrade-mutation-guard`). The guard would otherwise fail on `merge_group` since `pull_request.base.sha` is empty there; the queue-side guard in `ci-merge-queue.yaml` already covers that case. - **ci-sdk / ci-website / ci-test-docker-compose**: trigger + the same guard on `changed-files-check`. - **ci-twenty-apps**: trigger + the guard on `discover` (its `ci`/`integration` jobs gate on `discover` output, so they cascade off). ## Settings note This complements the branch-protection changes for the queue (enable the queue, max group size 1, per #23216). If the branch has **other** required checks beyond these seven whose workflows are `pull_request`-only, they need the same `merge_group` treatment or the queue will wait on them too. --- _Generated by [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code/session_015mZozbvyvha1S6wsEVLBnF)_ <!-- This is an auto-generated description by cubic. --> <a href="https://cubic.dev/pr/twentyhq/twenty/pull/23275?utm_source=github" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-no-image-dialog="true"><picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://www.cubic.dev/buttons/review-in-cubic-dark.svg"><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: light)" srcset="https://www.cubic.dev/buttons/review-in-cubic-light.svg"><img alt="Review in cubic" src="https://www.cubic.dev/buttons/review-in-cubic-dark.svg"></picture></a> <!-- End of auto-generated description by cubic. --> |
||
|
Paul Rastoin
|
cb95410a51 |
ci: test twenty-apps install against latest dockerhub and local server + new trigger (#22636)
## Why App installability can silently regress from two directions, and today CI only covers one of them: 1. A **server** change (about to merge from the monorepo) breaks the ability to install the **current public apps** — a backward-compatibility regression users would hit on upgrade. 2. An **app** change breaks against a server **built from the current monorepo files** (not just the last published image), so the app and the upcoming server drift apart before either ships. Both are compatibility guarantees between the server and the app catalog. Today they are only tested from the app side, against the latest published image. This PR makes CI enforce the contract from both sides: - Any server PR must keep **every** current public app installable. - Any app PR is exercised against both the **released** server (its integration suite — what users run today) and the **upcoming** (monorepo) server (integration plus deploy + install). ## What Shared building blocks so both CIs exercise the same paths instead of duplicating them: - **`spawn-twenty-server`** (composite action) — returns a running server (`server-url` + `api-key`) from either the latest published Docker Hub image or a server built from the monorepo. Both sources expose the same contract, so callers never branch on how the server came up. - **`test-twenty-app`** (composite action) — exercises one app against a given server, delegating deploy + install to the shared `deploy-twenty-app` / `install-twenty-app` actions. - **`discover-apps`** (reusable workflow) — the single source of truth for the app matrix. Parameterized by `scope` (`public` vs `internal-and-public`) and `changed-only`, so both CIs derive their matrix from the filesystem instead of a hand-maintained list. Discovery stays automatic: a newly added public app is picked up with no CI edit, which is what keeps the "every public app" guarantee honest. Wired in: - **CI Server** gains a `server-apps-install-smoke` matrix that installs every public app (`discover-apps` with `scope: public, changed-only: false`) against the about-to-merge server, gated in `ci-server-status-check` so a regression blocks merge. - **CI Twenty Apps** discovers changed apps (`scope: internal-and-public, changed-only: true`) and runs each against both server sources — the released image and the monorepo build. ## Why the coverage differs per side (not "always everything") `test-twenty-app` has three explicit modes — `installation-and-integration-test` (integration + deploy + install), `integration-test-only` (suite only), `installation-only` (deploy + install only) — because the useful signal depends on what actually changed: - **App PR against the monorepo server → `installation-and-integration-test`.** The app changed, so run its whole suite against the upcoming server, install included. - **App PR against the released server → `integration-test-only`.** Checks the app's own suite against what users run today; install against the released image is left to the SDK e2e path. - **Server PR → `installation-only`, across all apps.** The apps did not change; the only question is "can each one still be installed." Running every app's full integration suite on every server PR would be far slower and largely redundant. Installation-only keeps this broad (the whole catalog) and cheap enough to always run and block merge. The tradeoff is deliberate: broad but shallow where nothing in the app changed, deep where it did. ## Notes / trade-offs - On app-only PRs the `local` source pays a full server build per app (the `server-build` cache is only warm on server PRs). Could be optimized later with a shared warm-up job. - SDK-local (Verdaccio) install testing stays in `ci-create-app-e2e-minimal`; this PR's `local` source targets the server build. <a href="https://cubic.dev/pr/twentyhq/twenty/pull/22636?utm_source=github" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">``<img alt="Review in cubic" src="https://www.cubic.dev/buttons/review-in-cubic-dark.svg">``</a> |
||
|
martmull
|
c71663946e |
chore(apps): move public apps to packages/twenty-apps/public and generalize CI workflow (#22096)
## What Introduces a `packages/twenty-apps/public/` folder and moves the publicly publishable apps into it, then generalizes the apps CI workflow to cover both folders. ### Moves The following apps were moved from `packages/twenty-apps/internal/` to `packages/twenty-apps/public/` (via `git mv`, history preserved): - `people-data-labs` - `twenty-discord` - `twenty-exa` - `twenty-fireflies` - `twenty-last-contact` - `twenty-linear` - `twenty-meeting-bot` - `twenty-slack` These remain in `internal/`: `self-hosting`, `twenty-for-twenty`, `twenty-partners`. ### Workflow - Renamed `.github/workflows/ci-internal-apps.yaml` → `.github/workflows/ci-twenty-apps.yaml`. - The discover job now scans **both** `packages/twenty-apps/internal` and `packages/twenty-apps/public`: - the "no nested `.github`" guard checks both folders, - `changed-files` watches both globs, - the matrix builder iterates over both roots (guarded with `existsSync` so a missing folder is a no-op). - Each matrix entry still carries its own `path`, so the `ci` job works unchanged regardless of which folder an app lives in. ## Notes - The apps are standalone packages (own `yarn.lock`, not part of the root Nx workspaces), so no root `package.json` / `nx.json` / `tsconfig` changes were needed. - The companion publish workflow lives in `twentyhq/twenty-infra` (`publish-internal-apps.yaml` → `publish-public-apps.yaml`) and is updated in a paired PR. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --- _Generated by [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code/session_01Fmu3DWf1yTTkVW49eSkXwh)_ <!-- This is an auto-generated description by cubic. --> <a href="https://cubic.dev/pr/twentyhq/twenty/pull/22096?utm_source=github" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-no-image-dialog="true"><picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://www.cubic.dev/buttons/review-in-cubic-dark.svg"><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: light)" srcset="https://www.cubic.dev/buttons/review-in-cubic-light.svg"><img alt="Review in cubic" src="https://www.cubic.dev/buttons/review-in-cubic-dark.svg"></picture></a> <!-- End of auto-generated description by cubic. --> |
