[In Use: update with release] Issue #535: Change multidev deploy to manual only: tag based

[leonel-lullabot]

This branch is in use on customer sites.

Please develop using #670 . Sorry for the troubles.

Relates to:

• Add config option for MANUAL ONLY pantheon review apps / multidev deploy github action  #535

Description:

• Run the Multidev Deploy when the label pantheon-multidev is added

[YesCT]

I'm not sure how to make this configurable. But this PR is good for demonstrating the alternative.

---

Maybe

"extra": {
    "drainpipe": {
        "github": ["PantheonReviewApps"]
    }
}

could be the default and

"extra": {
    "drainpipe": {
        "github": ["PantheonReviewAppsManual"]
    }
}

could switch to this manual workflow_dispatch ??

I'm not sure what config could look like to send an option to PantheonReviewApps.

---

Keeping this as Draft is good to indicate this is not ready for merge.

[leonel-lullabot]

@YesCT I was trying to do something similar as you mentioned. My first idea was to include that option (PantheonReviewAppsManual) and clone the two worflows (PantheonReviewApps/PantheonReviewAppsDDEV) but using workflow_dispatch. This should work, but I wasn't sure it was a good idea to clone those workflows.

[justafish]

Here's the relevant bit of code that will need modifying https://github.com/Lullabot/drainpipe/blob/main/src/ScaffoldInstallerPlugin.php#L285

[YesCT]

Ran into an error with the multidev pr number being a string ("renovate") when trying this out on a customer project. There will probs be some more commits here before this is ready to move out of Draft.

[YesCT]

We are running this branch on one customer site. I'd like to get reviews from folks before copying it to 10 other repos.

[YesCT]

@leonel-lullabot Is there anything here you wanted to update or notes you wanted to leave for reviewers?

[leonel-lullabot]

@YesCT Recently, I noticed that when a Pull Request is updated, the Multidev deploy doesn't happen unless we remove the label and add it again, so I think it would be good to improve this process.

[justafish]

Instead of duplicating these files could we

[elvism-lullabot]

@leonel-lullabot could we get latest tag merged here?

[leonel-lullabot]

@elvism-lullabot Done 👍

[YesCT]

@mrdavidburns We don't want to use main on this branch. We want to use the release. Otherwise, we are running ahead of the release on the customer site.

(And drainpipe won't match with drainpipe-dev, though I'm not clear on when that matters. @justafish or @davereid might be able to explain when it matters.)

Maybe we should have one branch that is uptodate with main, for possible merging and review and testing,

and one that is uptodate with the release, for us to use on the customer site.

[mrdavidburns]

@YesCT Thanks for explaining why this pull request was not ready to be rebased with main. I went ahead and removed that commit from this branch.

We will want to update this branch with the latest in main and confirm all checks passed before this is merged.

[justafish]

I'm not quite following what went on there 😄
drainpipe-dev branches now get updated alongside branches opened in this repository, but there's no drainpipe-dev changes here

This branch needs updating with main and the changes requested addressed please 🙏

[YesCT]

I'm not quite following what went on there 😄 drainpipe-dev branches now get updated alongside branches opened in this repository, but there's no drainpipe-dev changes here

This branch needs updating with main and the changes requested addressed please 🙏

I moved the feedback to #670

Please let's use that PR for development. (Sorry but I'm afraid to develop on this branch, while I'm using it on several customer repos.) I think we can avoid this in the future, by testing on a test site (lsm-examples), and not live customer sites. Part of my fear, is that when this branch were to be updated with main, our customer repos would still be on an old version of drainpipe-dev, and I'm not sure what troubles having those out of sync could cause. Part of my fear, is more simple, that we'd try pushing something here, that might temporarily interrupt our working build and the customer might be impacted.)

[justafish]

@YesCT Whilst you could pin to a specific commit, I recommend you move your customer sites to using their own custom templates for this which aren't attached to Drainpipe, or your own fork - we can't really block active development on this branch and once it's merged it'll go away immediately

[YesCT]

Yeah, next time I'll bring in unmerged code differently.

I made the other branch to continue development. #670