[keycloak-dev] Branches for Node.js modules

[Vaclav Muzikar]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Stian Thorgersen <sthorger at redhat.com>
wrote:

> Actually central CI should only test with the latest Keycloak master, it
> doesn't need to test Node.js master against previous KC release
>
>
Yes, that's exactly what we do. The community nightly jobs for Node.js are
testing with Keycloak's master branch.
(And of course we have RHSSO jobs which are fired on releases and are
testing the released product version of Node.js adapter and server.)


> On 15 June 2017 at 14:43, Stian Thorgersen <sthorger at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Having multiple branches to control the version of Keycloak is not the
> > right approach. IMO Travis should just test with the latest Keycloak
> > release, then we should have a CI job in Central CI that checks with
> > Keycloak and RHSSO master.
> >
> > On 12 June 2017 at 11:18, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Sure. We actually have this issue: https://issues.jboss.org/brows
> >> e/KEYCLOAK-4985.
> >> Which we could catch earlier, if we had the CI running tests against
> >> the changes on Keycloak repo.
> >>
> >> So the idea is pretty much it:
> >>
> >> - latest: test the latest released version of Node.js adapter, against
> >>   the latest stable version of the Keycloak server (we already do this).
> >>
> >> - master: test the latest changes from the Node.js adapter, against the
> >>   latest changes on Keycloak server.
> >>
> >> Another alternative, if you don't like this idea, is to have a build
> >> matrix
> >> on Travis. The same idea from keycloak server tests. Or we can do
> nothing.
> >>
> >> The solo porpuse of this change is to guarantee that we catch issues
> >> like this earlier.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2017-06-12, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> >> > This doesn't make sense to me. Can you elaborate a bit more? The
> reason
> >> it
> >> > makes sense to have two branches for quickstarts is that one branch is
> >> Dev
> >> > and the other is the latest release. For node.js I can't see that
> being
> >> the
> >> > case as there's "proper" releases and tags and such stuff
> >> >
> >> > On 9 Jun 2017 6:25 pm, "Bruno Oliveira" <bruno at abstractj.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Good morning, I would like to propose the creation of 2 branches for
> >> > Node.js modules following the same approach from the quickstarts:
> >> >
> >> > - latest: stable
> >> > - master: development
> >> >
> >> > The initial motivation behind this, is to enable Travis to test these
> >> > modules
> >> > against the latest change on Keycloak server.
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > abstractj
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > keycloak-dev mailing list
> >> > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> abstractj
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev at 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.