• magic_lobster_party@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    CI/CD is useful regardless of which language you’re using. Sooner or later some customer is going to yell at you because you didn’t discover the fatal error before deploying.

      • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        51
        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