fix: use channel as package name for generic_package upload #607

phuocnb · 2023-09-28T07:21:05Z

The current generic_package upload does not satisfy what actual needs. We don't always release on the official release channel.

According to gitlab url format:
/projects/:id/packages/generic/:package_name/:package_version/:file_name?status=:status

What i did:

package_name equal to channel (release, alpha, beta, rc, etc)
package_version always requires in format major.minor.patch (required from gitlab generic package upload)
file_name is treated as the label config (if the label value does not exist, it would take version value instead)

phuocnb · 2023-09-28T10:45:36Z

It actually does not correct if the configuration provide a regex path (may match multiple files to upload).
I will update the file_name to take the basename of actual uploading file instead of using label.

JonasSchubert

IMO the option to configure the package name is a good idea.
But I would only provide this configuration option and would not change other functionalities.
Unit tests should be added, too.

JonasSchubert · 2023-09-28T18:22:56Z

lib/publish.js

@@ -88,11 +88,14 @@ export default async (pluginConfig, context) => {

          if (target === "generic_package") {
            // Upload generic packages
-            const encodedLabel = encodeURIComponent(label);
+            const { major, minor, patch } = semver.parse(version);


If I understand that correct, this renders it impossible to use prereleases (alpha, beta).

Yes, this does not look correct. GitLab allows much more:

The package version. The following regex validates this: \A(.?[\w+-]+.?)+\z. You can test your version strings on Rubular.

JonasSchubert · 2023-09-28T19:56:24Z

lib/publish.js

            // https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/packages/generic_packages/#publish-a-package-file
            uploadEndpoint = urlJoin(
              gitlabApiUrl,
-              `/projects/${encodedRepoId}/packages/generic/release/${encodedVersion}/${encodedLabel}?${
+              `/projects/${encodedRepoId}/packages/generic/${encodedChannel}/${encodedVersion}/${encodedLabel}?${


In the Gitlab documentation this changed part is the package name.
I would suggest, if we change this, to either use the package name or allow to provide a name for assets.
IMO the semantic release channel is not the correct way to go.

This is my Package Registry on a private gitlab repo.

The repo home page

The channel released assets

The release detail

You may notice that it is organized much better.

It does look clean and well organized, yes.
My concerns are regarding users trying to use package names instead of channels.

I see.
It's better add it as an optional configuration.
Old users will not be forced to change their existing projects.

I like the structure too, but I would not enforce it to all users.

Maybe let's just a configuration option for asset.packageName and make that templatable. Then you could configure it something like this:

{ "branches": ["main"], "plugins": [ [ "@semantic-release/gitlab", { "assets": [ { "path": "dist/asset.min.js", "label": "JS distribution", "target": "generic_package", "packageName": "${nextRelease.channel}" } ] } ] ] }

@fgreinacher thank you for the suggestion.
I'm implementing it that way and will push new code soon.

JonasSchubert · 2023-09-28T19:58:33Z

lib/publish.js

-            const encodedLabel = encodeURIComponent(label);
+            const { major, minor, patch } = semver.parse(version);
+            const encodedVersion = `${major}.${minor}.${patch}`;
+            const encodedLabel = encodeURIComponent(label ?? version);


IMO the fallback to the version is confusing. The version will then be the file name and package version

I notice this too.

asset.label can be templated, so that should be solvable via configuration, see https://github.com/semantic-release/gitlab#usage, and we don't need to change the core logic.

phuocnb · 2023-09-29T02:14:53Z

IMO the option to configure the package name is a good idea. But I would only provide this configuration option and would not change other functionalities. Unit tests should be added, too.

I would update the implementation and add unit tests later when the implementation has been approved.

fgreinacher · 2023-10-05T15:25:15Z

IMO the option to configure the package name is a good idea. But I would only provide this configuration option and would not change other functionalities. Unit tests should be added, too.

I would update the implementation and add unit tests later when the implementation has been approved.

@phuocnb Feel free to go on and ping me if you're stuck somewhere!

phuocnb · 2023-11-04T09:26:15Z

IMO the option to configure the package name is a good idea. But I would only provide this configuration option and would not change other functionalities. Unit tests should be added, too.

I would update the implementation and add unit tests later when the implementation has been approved.

@phuocnb Feel free to go on and ping me if you're stuck somewhere!

I were so busy in the last 2 months.
I'm back to this today.

phuocnb · 2023-11-08T08:19:12Z

@fgreinacher @JonasSchubert
Depends on a testing project on gitlab, i'm pretty sure that this label config will not work in case of using generic_package

"@semantic-release/gitlab",
{
        "gitlabUrl": "https://gitlab.com",
        "assets": [
	        {
		        "path": "assets/single-file.md",
		        "label": "Single Label",
		        "target": "generic_package"
	        }
        ]
}

The upload request actually return a 400 HTTP Error code.

This is the full job log
failed-job.txt

After running the above job, the result is:

A new tag has been created
No release is created
Nothing is uploaded to generic package

Changing the label value to match the filename and the job would be succeeded.

"@semantic-release/gitlab",
{
        "gitlabUrl": "https://gitlab.com",
        "assets": [
	        {
		        "path": "assets/single-file.md",
		        "label": "single-file.md",
		        "target": "generic_package"
	        }
        ]
}

In the publish.js:

line 98-103

uploadEndpoint = urlJoin(
              gitlabApiUrl,
              `/projects/${encodedRepoId}/packages/generic/release/${encodedVersion}/${encodedLabel}?${
                status ? `status=${status}&` : ""
              }select=package_file`
            );

line 115-118

const url = urlJoin(
              gitlabApiUrl,
              `/projects/${encodedRepoId}/packages/generic/release/${encodedVersion}/${encodedLabel}`
            );

I believe that encodedLabel should be changed to encodedFilename (which is calculated from file path).

This is the original issue that i want to commit a fix on this PR.

Anyway, i still working on this issue (on another branch).
Since the PR does not allow me to change the source branch, do you have any suggestion to let me do it?

fix: support other channels on generic_package

67a6f6e

JonasSchubert suggested changes Sep 28, 2023

View reviewed changes

phuocnb marked this pull request as draft September 29, 2023 02:16

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix: use channel as package name for generic_package upload #607

fix: use channel as package name for generic_package upload #607

phuocnb commented Sep 28, 2023 •

edited

Loading

phuocnb commented Sep 28, 2023

JonasSchubert left a comment

JonasSchubert Sep 28, 2023

fgreinacher Oct 2, 2023

JonasSchubert Sep 28, 2023

phuocnb Sep 29, 2023 •

edited

Loading

JonasSchubert Sep 29, 2023

phuocnb Sep 29, 2023

fgreinacher Oct 2, 2023 •

edited

Loading

phuocnb Oct 3, 2023

JonasSchubert Sep 28, 2023

phuocnb Sep 29, 2023

fgreinacher Oct 2, 2023 •

edited

Loading

phuocnb commented Sep 29, 2023

fgreinacher commented Oct 5, 2023 •

edited

Loading

phuocnb commented Nov 4, 2023

phuocnb commented Nov 8, 2023 •

edited

Loading

fix: use channel as package name for generic_package upload #607

Are you sure you want to change the base?

fix: use channel as package name for generic_package upload #607

Conversation

phuocnb commented Sep 28, 2023 • edited Loading

phuocnb commented Sep 28, 2023

JonasSchubert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

phuocnb Sep 29, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The repo home page

The channel released assets

The release detail

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fgreinacher Oct 2, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fgreinacher Oct 2, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

phuocnb commented Sep 29, 2023

fgreinacher commented Oct 5, 2023 • edited Loading

phuocnb commented Nov 4, 2023

phuocnb commented Nov 8, 2023 • edited Loading

phuocnb commented Sep 28, 2023 •

edited

Loading

phuocnb Sep 29, 2023 •

edited

Loading

fgreinacher Oct 2, 2023 •

edited

Loading

fgreinacher Oct 2, 2023 •

edited

Loading

fgreinacher commented Oct 5, 2023 •

edited

Loading

phuocnb commented Nov 8, 2023 •

edited

Loading