Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 36.87%. Comparing base (4a0d565) to head (2bb4a7d).

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1068      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   36.86%   36.87%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         127      127              
  Lines        7492     7492              
==========================================
+ Hits         2762     2763       +1     
+ Misses       4730     4729       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@rgaudin @BPerlakiH I'm not sure I want this is main. This shoudl be done adhoc in a PR when needed and then removed... or do I miss the point?

There are a couple of issues with this PR:

• the goal is a bit fuzzy. What do we want to test exactly? Compilation? Notarization? Upload?
• It's a duplicate of the current CD workflow. If this is meant to be ran adhoc on a test branch, that's fine (and we dont need a PR) but if this is going to be merged that's a duplicate of a long and complicated file.
• it's expecting a manual trigger to run (workflow_dispatch) which is great for tests but needs to be on main branch. This is tied to previous point.

I believe what we want is the CD workflow to be able to run outside the release event on a different event (specific tag or workflow_dispatch) and in this case have conditions on some step (like the upload one).

@kelson42 @rgaudin At the moment, this is only temporary. Without merging it I don't have the option to run the CD build manually. I only see these options:

and under CD, there's no manual run.
Since the original CD file is conditionally based on the trigger (either schedule, TestFlight or release), simply adding the workflow_dispatch (manual run) is not enough,
therefore I thought, that duplicating the file for test purposes makes more sense. Once the macOS FTP issue is solved, I am happy to delete this file.

Or maybe there's a way to run this without merging it, that would be even better, but I couldn't find it.

Or maybe there's a way to run this without merging it, that would be even better, but I couldn't find it.

This is what @rgaudin said a few days ago: all worflowsmcan be run in PR, you just need to put the right event there to be triggered.

@kelson42 @rgaudin Maybe I am getting this wrong, and there's a way to do this... I am not sure.

By the first look, it seems to me that it's a security implementation from GitHub, so that unverified code (not merged) cannot modify the current workflows.

If you know a way how to run this without merging, I would be happy to learn that.

I don't understand why fixing a CI/CD which got broken a few weeks ago generates all that fuzz. why you don't just fix it in a PR?