Merge all native platform specific workflows into 1 again

[mcbarton]

Description

Please include a summary of changes, motivation and context for this PR.

Once this PR is finished, all the native platform specific workflows should be merged into 1 workflow file. e.g. main.yml

Fixes # (issue)

Type of change

Please tick all options which are relevant.

• Bug fix
• New feature
• Requires documentation updates

Testing

Please describe the test(s) that you added and ran to verify your changes.

Checklist

• I have read the contribution guide recently

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 77.74%. Comparing base (7f21aca) to head (c6673b3).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #625   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   77.74%   77.74%           
=======================================
  Files           9        9           
  Lines        3757     3757           
=======================================
  Hits         2921     2921           
  Misses        836      836           

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[mcbarton]

@vgvassilev The name is the only thing I wasn't sure about. Main/CI didn't seem useful as a name. For now I just put native builds, since that is what the jobs are. I could shorten it to native, since the other workflow just has Emscripten. What do you think?

At some point I plan to combine this with the Emscripten workflows. At which point it could just be called Builds.

[aaronj0]

@mcbarton is this PR ready for review?

[mcbarton]

@aaronj0 Yes, this is ready for review. If you approve of the PR, then I will merge it. I want to rebase and merge this PR, rather than squash and merge like I usually do, as the commits are meaningful, since they are about the creation and use of individual reusable actions.

[aaronj0]

@aaronj0 Yes, this is ready for review. If you approve of the PR, then I will merge it. I want to rebase and merge this PR, rather than squash and merge like I usually do, as the commits are meaningful, since they are about the creation and use of individual reusable actions.

I believe the first 5 commits should land as one commit since we can have a single point where the workflows were made reusable. If you can do that then yes feel free to merge as 2 commits.

[mcbarton]

@aaronj0 Yes, this is ready for review. If you approve of the PR, then I will merge it. I want to rebase and merge this PR, rather than squash and merge like I usually do, as the commits are meaningful, since they are about the creation and use of individual reusable actions.

I believe the first 5 commits should land as one commit since we can have a single point where the workflows were made reusable. If you can do that then yes feel free to merge as 2 commits.

I should make clear that the workflows and actions are still not reusable across repos at this point. I know I could not use them in cppyy related repos, which is the end goal. They still need modifying to be reusable, which will be done in a subsequent PR. I'd still like to keep these 5 commits separate.

[vgvassilev]

I'd prefer having atomic and single commits for the CI. We probably are dominated by ci changes in the development which is probably not the best sign we send to the outside observers.

[aaronj0]

I'd prefer having atomic and single commits for the CI. We probably are dominated by ci changes in the development which is probably not the best sign we send to the outside observers.

I agree with this, and now that I look at it, the documentation update can also go into the same commit, since it's a readme update based on the single workflow file added in the previous commit. Those are not atomic... can you squash and merge?

[aaronj0]

LGTM, given this is squashed for merging

[mcbarton]

If you want to squash and merge, then go ahead, but I want to make it clear that I am quite unhappy with this. I made an effort to make a series of reasonable commits, each with a clear objective to getting to this stage of being able to have one workflow file again. To me merging them into a single commit, makes it less clear how this was achieved, and disregards the effort needed to make this happen.

[aaronj0]

If you want to squash and merge, then go ahead, but I want to make it clear that I am quite unhappy with this. I made an effort to make a series of reasonable commits, each with a clear objective to getting to this stage of being able to have one workflow file again. To me merging them into a single commit, makes it less clear how this was achieved, and disregards the effort needed to make this happen.

This is one of those cases where the commits don't reflect discrete functional changes to our CI infrastructure, that make sense to have in the history. That being said, squashing won’t erase your effort or make it any less visible; Thanks again for all the great work in getting us back down to a single workflow file with reusable actions.