Topic/gitaction test

[ohdearaugustin]

Fix #125

[VikashKothary]

@ohdearaugustin Thanks so much for your contribution.

I expect these pipelines will considerably improve the stability of the software and will really aid me in maintaining the sever so it's much appreciated.

I've left some comments about using the make commands in the CI config. This is mainly done for consistency so that the pipelines will work in a consistently to when the individual scripts are run locally.

[ohdearaugustin]

I took a look at your comments, so basically you want to use make for the CI. This of course is possible, but I'm absolutely not a fan of it. This is my personal opinion. Why use a build system like poetry and then relay on another system to actually build the everything. Therefore I created the pipeline with the natural tools. I'm not a huge fan of I need 5 extra shell scripts and a make file to build something. This will lead to more complications. In general you want to have one source of true with build system rather the build system does everything or nothing at all. Having a manual way and a build system will lead to clashes in future.

If you insist on doing it with make, i will change. This will also have the effect it will test if the make file is working.

Edit: Grammar/Wording

[VikashKothary]

Hi @ohdearaugustin, Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I understand your critique of using make i.e. that it unnecessarily increases the complexity of the build, when the language-specific tools and github action plugins can do the same thing, and I agree it's a valid point.

One of my best practices when using CI/CD pipelines to assist development is to treat it as any other user. This means that any code that can be run by a CI/CD pipeline can be run by a user locally. This is important because it is typically quicker to run steps like linting and testing locally rather than wait for the CI pipeline to run.

Make is my opinionated method of achieving this. And in my experience it prevents a lot of issues in the long run.

That being said, I'm not going to enforce my preference to prevent issues that may never come up. It's also true that your initial code in more in-line with how Github recommends Actions should be used. As such, I'm happy to merge your code in the form you initially recommended.

That being said, yaml is not a place for code. My only request is that you use the bash scripts (with or without make) for the multi-line steps so that developers can use their IDEs with syntax highlighting, linting, etc. Single lines are okay.

[ohdearaugustin]

So rebased the PR and included the requested changes. Unittests fail as expected due to #139. Let's me know if you need more changes.

[VikashKothary]

LGTM.

Thanks for your contribution. This will be massively beneficial for this project.