only run chart linting for specific files instead of trying to catch every exception

[jessebot]

Pull Request

Description of the change

Only run the chart linting action for:

• charts/nextcloud/Chart.yaml
• charts/nextcloud/values.yaml
• charts/nextcloud/templates/** (everything in the templates directory)

Benefits

This is better than trying to manually exclude all the possible things we don't want to run it on.

Possible drawbacks

Can't think of any.

Additional information

This would fix the issue where this PR, #574, is trying to run the chart linter 🤦

Checklist

• DCO has been signed off on the commit.
• Chart version bumped in Chart.yaml according to semver.
• (optional) Variables are documented in the README.md

[provokateurin]

Hm now the PR doesn't pass, because the workflow is set to be required. Could you adapt the workflow so that there is a summary job that always like in https://github.com/nextcloud/.github/blob/master/workflow-templates/node.yml? Then we can mark that one as required and we won't accidentally merge with red CI.

[jessebot]

Hm now the PR doesn't pass, because the workflow is set to be required. Could you adapt the workflow so that there is a summary job that always like in https://github.com/nextcloud/.github/blob/master/workflow-templates/node.yml? Then we can mark that one as required and we won't accidentally merge with red CI.

lemme give it a try!

[jessebot]

oh, that did something! :O You're a genius, Kate!

[provokateurin]

Hm this looks wrong, as the chart testing step should be skipped since the changes in this PR didn't touch any of those files.

[jessebot]

Hm this looks wrong, as the chart testing step should be skipped since the changes in this PR didn't touch any of those files.

You're right, I missed the needs parameter for the lint-test job. The final summary job is currently called Lint and Test Charts, which is an attempt to match the workflow you linked where the workflow itself is called node and the final summary job is also node. Do you want to keep that same formatting? Open to thoughts and opinions :)

[provokateurin]

You can just change the name if you like. I'll change which workflow is required afterwards (but it will require every PR to be rebased).

[provokateurin]

Looks like it is also fine to have the required job being skipped? Then we don't even need the summary job which was probably was just added for compatibility.

[jessebot]

You can just change the name if you like. I'll change which workflow is required afterwards (but it will require every PR to be rebased).

oof, rebasing every PR in this repo will be pain.

Looks like it is also fine to have the required job being skipped? Then we don't even need the summary job which was probably was just added for compatibility.

I'm confused. How do I do that? 🤔

[provokateurin]

oof, rebasing every PR in this repo will be pain.

I think we actually don't need that, as the name of the required job won't change.