Is nightly enough?
Consider keycloak repo breaks due to some change and the quickstarts cannot
be built until this is fixed. In nightly, that would delay the development
to the next day.
My vote is to either build Keycloak from master like Bruno suggested or
have a way documented to rebuild the "latest" image (regardless of
"nightly" name) anytime on demand to enable dependent changes to be
developed quickly.
--Hynek
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:34 AM Vaclav Muzikar <vmuzikar(a)redhat.com> wrote:
+1
We've got a nightly CI job testing Node.js adapter against upstream but
running it in Travis (with each PR) would make more sense.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:40 PM Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org>
wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> Last week Pedro submitted a PR to the Node.js adapter, but the build is
> failing because it depends on the changes from Keycloak server master
> branch.
>
> Today we download the latest stable release from Keycloak to run the
> integration tests for this adapter. I would like to change it and follow
> the same approach from the Quickstarts, which means clone/build/run
> Keycloak server from master. In this way, we can always it test against
> the latest changes.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> --
>
> abstractj
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
--
Václav Muzikář
Quality Engineer
Keycloak / Red Hat Single Sign-On
Red Hat Czech s.r.o.
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev