We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Validating data in CI takes a long time, mainly to setup the validation environment.
Most of the time is spent install frictionless validation tools (https://github.com/frictionlessdata/frictionless-ci) using a dedicated github action which does not leverage a pre-backed container image.
Additionally, the action does not seem to be well maintained (use old version of node).
And last but not least, the output of current validation is not very practical:
See if we can use a custom container (build separately) for the validation step.
Ensure the result of the validation appears directly in the logs of the workflow.
It may also permit us to use an different tool to validate data like qsv #55
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I build such feature and docker image here: https://github.com/demeringo/csv-validator-docker-image
Sorry, something went wrong.
An example of output for a failed validation can be viewed on this PR: https://github.com/demeringo/csv-validator-docker-image/actions/runs/12000137639/job/33448873520?pr=1
demeringo
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
Problem
Validating data in CI takes a long time, mainly to setup the validation environment.
Most of the time is spent install frictionless validation tools (https://github.com/frictionlessdata/frictionless-ci) using a dedicated github action which does not leverage a pre-backed container image.
Additionally, the action does not seem to be well maintained (use old version of node).
And last but not least, the output of current validation is not very practical:
Solution
See if we can use a custom container (build separately) for the validation step.
Ensure the result of the validation appears directly in the logs of the workflow.
Alternatives
Additional context or elements
It may also permit us to use an different tool to validate data like qsv #55
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: