setup maintenance for repo #9
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: "Uptime Kuma pull request template"
|
||||
about: "Uptime Kuma pull request template"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<!--
|
||||
Thank you for doing recipe maintenance work!
|
||||
Please mark all checklist items which are relevant for your changes.
|
||||
Please remove the checklist items which are not relevant for your changes.
|
||||
Feel free to remove this comment.
|
||||
-->
|
||||
|
||||
* [ ] I have deployed and tested my changes
|
||||
* [ ] I have [updated relevant versions in `abra.sh`](https://docs.coopcloud.tech/maintainers/upgrade/#updating-versions-in-the-abrash)
|
||||
* [ ] I have made my environment variable changes [backwards compatible](https://docs.coopcloud.tech/maintainers/upgrade/#backwards-compatible-environment-variable-changes)
|
||||
* [ ] I ran `abra recipe lint uptime-kuma --chaos` on the PR's branch and fixed the warnings.
|
||||
|
|
||||
* [ ] I have added a [release note entry](https://docs.coopcloud.tech/maintainers/upgrade/#creating-new-release-notes)
|
||||
@@ -1,11 +1,16 @@
|
||||
# uptime-kuma
|
||||
|
||||
> One line description of the recipe
|
||||
[](https://build.coopcloud.tech/coop-cloud/uptime-kuma)
|
||||
fauno
commented
nice! but i think the ci fails often and it can be misleading :P nice! but i think the ci fails often and it can be misleading :P
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
> A fancy self-hosted monitoring tool
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- metadata -->
|
||||
|
||||
* **Category**: Apps
|
||||
* **Status**: 0
|
||||
* **Maintainer**: [@stevensting](https://git.coopcloud.tech/stevensting)
|
||||
* **Status**: `stable`
|
||||
|
fauno
commented
wasn't this a number from 0 to 5? wasn't this a number from 0 to 5?
stevensting
commented
yes it was. I now took the template from the traefik recipe, as they started the maintainers concept there. I know someone wated to create a schema for this information, but it wasn't done as far as I know. And according to https://docs.coopcloud.tech/federation/resolutions/passed/025/
but on the contrary there is the following in there:
@decentral1se come for help! yes it was. I now took the template from the traefik recipe, as they started the maintainers concept there. I know someone wated to create a schema for this information, but it wasn't done as far as I know.
And according to https://docs.coopcloud.tech/federation/resolutions/passed/025/
> I propose that we adopt a "stable", "testing", "unstable" designation to help organise our recipes internally and present them in a clearer way externally.
but on the contrary there is the following in there:
> The status score and README of the project should be kept up to date with relevant infomation
@decentral1se come for help!
stevensting
commented
or do I misinterpret the term score? Can score also be a string? or do I misinterpret the term score? Can score also be a string?
decentral1se
commented
https://docs.coopcloud.tech/abra/recipes/#status-features-score Yeh, we're still deep in a custom https://docs.coopcloud.tech/abra/recipes/#status-features-score
Yeh, we're still deep in a custom `README.md` format 😅 I am not sure, was the stable/testing/etc. supposed to replace the numbering or be an additional metadata? Uhm... wanna ask around? Good that we ran into this!
3wordchant
commented
My take:
My take:
1. Rename previous `Status` to `Features`
2. Put new stable/testing as `Status`
|
||||
* **Category**: Utilities
|
||||
* **Features**: ?
|
||||
* **Image**: [`uptime-kuma`](https://hub.docker.com/r/uptime-kuma), 4, upstream
|
||||
* **Healthcheck**: No
|
||||
* **Backups**: Yes
|
||||
@@ -25,7 +30,7 @@ For more, see [`docs.coopcloud.tech`](https://docs.coopcloud.tech).
|
||||
|
||||
## MariaDB
|
||||
|
||||
By default uptime-kuma uses a sqlite database. It is possible to switch to a mariadb:
|
||||
By default uptime-kuma uses a sqlite database. It is possible to switch to a mariadb by:
|
||||
```
|
||||
#COMPOSE_FILE="$COMPOSE_FILE:compose.mariadb.yml"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"$schema": "https://docs.renovatebot.com/renovate-schema.json",
|
||||
"extends": [
|
||||
"config:recommended"
|
||||
],
|
||||
|
fauno
commented
you can add maintainers as automatic reviewers, we tried with a team on vaultwarden but it didn't work you can add maintainers as automatic reviewers, we tried with a team on vaultwarden but it didn't work
stevensting
commented
Interesting. But does it work with single user accounts? Interesting. But does it work with single user accounts?
fauno
commented
according to the renovate docs you could add an array of usernames. we tried with a team but i just realized it's a forgejo feature, not gitea! https://git.coopcloud.tech/coop-cloud/vaultwarden/src/branch/main/renovate.json#L7 according to the [renovate docs](https://docs.renovatebot.com/configuration-options/#reviewers) you could add an array of usernames.
we tried with a team but i just realized it's a forgejo feature, not gitea!
https://git.coopcloud.tech/coop-cloud/vaultwarden/src/branch/main/renovate.json#L7
|
||||
"reviewers": [
|
||||
"stevensting"
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
should this checklist have an "I have ran
abra recipe lint" item?good idea