Some people just wake up and choose violence - eviltoast
    • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      CICD isn’t an alternative to testing your own work locally. You should always validate your work before committing. But then once you do, the CICD pipeline runs to run the tests on the automation server and kicks off deployments to your dev environment. This shows everyone else that the change is good without everyone having to pull down your changes and validate it themselves. The CICD pipeline also provides operational readiness since a properly set up pipeline can be pointed to a new environment to recreate everything without manual setup. This is essential for timely disaster recovery.

      If you’re just working on little projects by yourself, it’s usually not worth the time. But if you’re working in anything approaching enterprise grade software, CICD is a must.

      • jabberati@social.anoxinon.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        @Stumblinbear I only worked on small projects so far, that’s probably why I don’t understand it. But a merge commit is like any other commit and the person pushing this commit has to make sure it works.

        • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          When working in teams, merging in two pull requests with seemingly unrelated changes is common practice. If I had to rebase and re-run tests every time another PR got merged in while mine was awaiting reviews, I’d spend most of my time running tests