Migrate to CircleCI
See original GitHub issue🧐 Motivation
I’ve recently found to like CircleCI better than TravisCI because it makes locally CI testing easier (for TravisCI I don’t even know if that’s possible). So if TravisCI doen’t support local CI testing, I suggest we add CircleCI
📝 Details
I will be volunteer to contribute a PR to set it up if this community likes its idea.
See https://github.com/xinbenlv/eip-2135 for example. Makes new contribution easier.
Checklist for migration as in .travis.yml
- Linter
- Unit test
- Test with code coverage
- Test with SOLC_NIGHTLY
- Slack notification on_success:change and on_failure:always
- Allow failure for - Not available because of this issue
.travis.yml as of today
dist: trusty
sudo: false
group: beta
language: node_js
node_js:
- "8"
cache:
directories:
- node_modules
jobs:
# XXX fast_finish doesn't work with stages yet. See
# https://github.com/travis-ci/travis-ci/issues/8425
# --elopio - 20180531
fast_finish: true
allow_failures:
- env: SOLC_NIGHTLY=true
include:
- stage: tests
name: "Linter"
script: npm run lint
- stage: tests
name: "Unit tests"
script: npm run test
- stage: tests
name: "Unit tests with coverage report"
script: npm run test
env: SOLIDITY_COVERAGE=true
- stage: tests
name: "Unit tests using solc nightly"
script: npm run test
env: SOLC_NIGHTLY=true
if: branch = master and type != pull_request
notifications:
slack:
rooms:
- secure: 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
on_success: change
on_failure: always
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 4 years ago
- Reactions:1
- Comments:5 (5 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Introduction to CircleCI migration
Part of the test migration is conducting User Acceptance Testing (UAT) so your end users can ensure that the project works on CircleCI...
Read more >Migrating from CircleCI - GitLab Docs
If you are currently using CircleCI, you can migrate your CI/CD pipelines to GitLab CI/CD, and start making use of all its powerful...
Read more >Migrating from CircleCI to GitHub Actions
Migrating workflows and jobs ... CircleCI defines workflows in the config.yml file, which allows you to configure more than one workflow. GitHub requires...
Read more >Migrating our CI to Github Actions - Ana Schwendler
CircleCI served us well (and still is) but we decided to experiment with Github Actions in order to have a single platform where...
Read more >GitHub Actions and CircleCI tool comparison
Migrating workflows and jobs ... CircleCI defines workflows in the config.yml file, which allows you to configure more than one workflow. GitHub ...
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
I’d like to hear @frangio’s thoughts here, but on https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-sdk we have migrated from Travis to Circle not long ago, and the experience is much better. So +1 from me on this!
Does it look good? I actually also suggest we keep both Travis CI and CircleCI in parallel for a little while until CircleCI proof stable and sufficient. What do you think?