## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Client version string is inconsistent. Building `v20.0.0-beta.8` tag
locally produces binaries that report `v20.0.0-beta.8` version but
binaries built in guix would report
`v20.0.0rc1-g3e732a952226a20505f907e4fd9b3fdbb14ea5ee` instead. Building
any commit after `v20.0.0-beta.8` locally would result in versions like
`v20.0.0rc1-8c94153d2497` which is close but it's still yet another
format. And both versions with `rc1` in their names are confusing cause
you'd expect them to mention `beta.8` instead maybe (or is it just me?
:D ).
## What was done?
Change it so that the version string would look like this:
on tag: ~`v20.0.0-beta.8-dev` or `v20.0.0-beta.8-gitarc`~
`v20.0.0-beta.8`
post-tag: ~`v20.0.0-beta.8-1-gb837e08164-gitarc`~
`v20.0.0-beta.8-1-gb837e08164`
post-tag format is
`recent tag`-`commits since that tag`-`g+12 chars of commit hash`-`dirty
(optional)` ~-`dev or gitarc`~
~`dev`/`gitarc` suffixes should help avoiding confusion with the release
versions and they also indicate the way non-release binaries were
built.~
Note that release binaries do not use any of this, they still use
`PACKAGE_VERSION` from `configure` like before.
Also, `CLIENT_VERSION_RC` is no longer used in this setup so it was
removed.
Few things aren't clear to me yet:
1. Version bump in `configure.ac` no longer affects the reported version
(unless it's an actual release). Are there any downsides I might be
missing?
2. Which tag should we use on `develop` once we bump version in
configure? `v21.0.0-init`? `v21.0.0-alpha1`?
3. How is it going to behave once `merge master back into develop` kind
of PR is merged? E.g. say `develop` branch is on `v21.0.0-alpha1` tag
and we merge v20.1.0 from `master` back into it. Will this bring
`v20.1.0` release tag into `develop`? Will it become the one that will
be used from that moment? If so we will probably need another tag on
`develop` every time such PR is merged e.g. `v21.0.0-alpha2` (or
whatever the next number is).
Don't think these are blockers but would like to hear thoughts from
others.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Built binaries locally, built them using guix at a specific tag and at
some commit on top of it.
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
- Using `actions/cache` with a local buildx cache without the "move
cache" workaround will result in constant growth in cache size:
https://docs.docker.com/build/ci/github-actions/cache/#local-cache
## What was done?
- Docker natively supports the GHA Cache API, so we should use it for
faster and more efficient cache usage
- Actions were also bumped to current stable versions
## How Has This Been Tested?
Devs please test this by running a test Guix build from workflow
dispatch
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
- We want to enable use of the AWS-hosted GitHub Actions runners, now
that [corresponding
infra](https://github.com/dcginfra/tf-aws-gh-runner/pull/8/files#diff-ad98d33884a302f6c747dc6b326c6b3af3887f2ec25e0bd7a0395f10444818f3)
exists to deploy these runners
## What was done?
Add new labels and workflow dispatch button to allow runner testing
## How Has This Been Tested?
Pending testing in CI
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
see warnings in https://github.com/dashpay/dash/actions/runs/5462770856
## What was done?
https://github.blog/changelog/2022-10-11-github-actions-deprecating-save-state-and-set-output-commands/
## How Has This Been Tested?
n/a
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
1. not all binaries were covered with checksums
2. there were no checksums for archives
## What was done?
add missing checksums, also group and sort them
## How Has This Been Tested?
run commands after local guix build
see this PR results
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Automated guix builds in CI when specifically requested
## What was done?
Any PR with the `build-guix` label added will automatically have the
Guix build ran and the hashes placed in the CI output to compare against
## How Has This Been Tested?
This PR
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
