Skip to content

[rust] Add CI Checks to Rust fork #186

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: rustc/20.1-2025-07-13
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dianqk
Copy link
Member

@dianqk dianqk commented Jul 14, 2025

  • On Linux, run check-llvm and check-lld.
  • On macOS, run check-llvm.

I haven't added it on Windows yet, as I haven't been able to get it working with the free tier of GitHub Actions.

@dianqk dianqk requested a review from a team July 14, 2025 23:40
@cuviper
Copy link
Member

cuviper commented Jul 15, 2025

Is there precedent for using these actions in other rust-lang projects?

  • jlumbroso/free-disk-space
  • hendrikmuhs/ccache-action

I see the latter is used by LLVM already, but pinned to a specific commit, which is prudent since tags can change -- and this was a recent vulnerability in a popular action, in case you missed it.

@dianqk
Copy link
Member Author

dianqk commented Jul 15, 2025

Is there precedent for using these actions in other rust-lang projects?

  • jlumbroso/free-disk-space
  • hendrikmuhs/ccache-action

I see the latter is used by LLVM already, but pinned to a specific commit, which is prudent since tags can change -- and this was a recent vulnerability in a popular action, in case you missed it.

Thanks! For the former, I would use https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/ci/scripts/free-disk-space.sh.

@dianqk dianqk force-pushed the ci-checks branch 2 times, most recently from eee88ca to 04ebfef Compare July 15, 2025 12:58
- On Linux, run `check-llvm` and `check-lld`.
- On macOS, run `check-llvm`.
@nikic
Copy link

nikic commented Jul 15, 2025

As this is a read-only action in a repo that never produces any artifacts, we probably don't need to be overly concerned with GHA security?

@cuviper
Copy link
Member

cuviper commented Jul 15, 2025

As this is a read-only action in a repo that never produces any artifacts, we probably don't need to be overly concerned with GHA security?

I suppose you're right, but it doesn't hurt to be a little cautious in case that ever changes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants