Skip to content

CI: Replace custom caching with rust-cache action #3980

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 14, 2021
Merged

CI: Replace custom caching with rust-cache action #3980

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 14, 2021

Conversation

Turbo87
Copy link
Member

@Turbo87 Turbo87 commented Oct 5, 2021

@Turbo87
Copy link
Member Author

Turbo87 commented Oct 5, 2021

looks like the cache sizes and CI times are comparable, but with less custom and verbose code :)

@Turbo87 Turbo87 added A-backend ⚙️ C-internal 🔧 Category: Nonessential work that would make the codebase more consistent or clear labels Oct 5, 2021
@Turbo87 Turbo87 requested review from jtgeibel and JohnTitor October 5, 2021 18:58
@Turbo87 Turbo87 marked this pull request as ready for review October 5, 2021 18:58
@JohnTitor
Copy link
Member

The idea itself sounds good to me but I remember we have a security concern about the third-party actions...

@Turbo87
Copy link
Member Author

Turbo87 commented Oct 7, 2021

FWIW we're also already using it in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/a985d8e6c7f0519fa1e147854430a381ac4eadf8/src/tools/clippy/.github/workflows/deploy.yml#L55 and https://github.com/rust-lang/docs.rs/blob/dd650cb382385c87197b344e5a326b72dc4b55fc/.github/workflows/ci.yml#L24 and since it's not some shady unknown maintainer I'm personally not too worried about it :)

@JohnTitor
Copy link
Member

Oh, then it may be fine to use. Another concern is that we record the cache size (though it's a bit outdated), is it possible on Swatinem/rust-cache as well?

@Turbo87
Copy link
Member Author

Turbo87 commented Oct 13, 2021

yep, it shows them when restoring and saving the cache:

Bildschirmfoto 2021-10-13 um 09 17 50

Bildschirmfoto 2021-10-13 um 09 17 19

JohnTitor
JohnTitor approved these changes Oct 14, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@JohnTitor JohnTitor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Okay, makes sense to me now, thanks for clarifying!

@JohnTitor
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 14, 2021

📌 Commit f7c5c28 has been approved by JohnTitor

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 14, 2021

⌛ Testing commit f7c5c28 with merge e41f2a4...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 14, 2021

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: JohnTitor
Pushing e41f2a4 to master...

@bors bors merged commit e41f2a4 into rust-lang:master Oct 14, 2021
@Turbo87 Turbo87 deleted the cache-action branch October 14, 2021 12:16
@Turbo87 Turbo87 mentioned this pull request Nov 2, 2021
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@JohnTitor JohnTitor JohnTitor approved these changes

@jtgeibel jtgeibel Awaiting requested review from jtgeibel

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
A-backend ⚙️ C-internal 🔧 Category: Nonessential work that would make the codebase more consistent or clear
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@Turbo87 @JohnTitor @bors