GitHub Actions template in charmcraft
Metadata
Current evaluation
Rejected. The team decided against embedding a GitHub Actions CI template in charmcraft init to avoid polluting new projects with provider-specific files. Documentation was suggested as the preferred alternative.
Suggested action: —
No scores available.
Issue body
In [graylog-operator we set up GitHub Actions](https://github.com/canonical/graylog-operator/blob/main/.github/workflows/python-package.yml) to have CI.
And I was wondering if it would be a good feature getting a functional CI template inside the directory structure when we run `charmcraft init`
**Pros**:
- Since a very important portion of the software repositories are created in GitHub, we would give the possibility of having continuous integration to the people who use charmcraft and manage the repository here, out of the box.
- Indirectly we encourage them to have automatic testing of their code, which is always good
- We help to standardize python versions, coding style, ways to build virtual environments, ways to run tests, etc
**Cons**:
- We would make charmcraft code a little bit more complex to support this functionality.
- A new file to be maintained
**Considerations**:
- If the person who uses charmcraft to start writing their charm doesn't use github, will have an useless file in the repo.
- This template will not work in others repo/CI providers (gitlab, travis, etc)
I am not completely sure about this, on the one hand I think we could do it, but on the other hand I think
may be it would be good enough having the template in the documentation... This would however, encourage less use of CI.
What do you think @facundobatista @chipaca ?
Evaluation history
| Date | Model | Scores | Action | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| qwen3.6-35b-a3b-mtp-q6 | — | — | Rejected. The team decided against embedding a GitHub Actions CI template in charmcraft init to avoid polluting new projects with provider-specific files. Documentation was suggested as the preferred alternative. | |
| qwen/qwen3.6-35b-a3b | — | — | The request to add a GitHub Actions template to charmcraft init was rejected. Contributors suggested publishing dedicated GitHub Actions or documenting CI setup instead. The team declined to avoid bloat and support multiple CI providers. | |
| qwen/qwen3.6-35b-a3b | — | — | Request to add a GitHub Actions template to charmcraft init was rejected. Maintainers declined due to multiple CI providers and added complexity, recommending documentation or external actions instead. | |
| qwen3.6-35b-a3b-mtp-q6 | — | — | Rejected. The team decided against embedding a GitHub Actions template in charmcraft init to avoid provider-specific bloat. Contributors recommended publishing separate GitHub Actions or documenting CI setup instead. | |
| qwen3.6-35b-a3b-mtp-q6 | — | — | The feature request to embed a GitHub Actions template in charmcraft init was rejected. The team opted against it due to diverse CI providers, recommending documentation or standalone actions instead. |
Update history
No update history recorded yet.
Related issues
| Issue | Project | State | Summary | Similarity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #439 [docs] how to run charmcraft as part of a CI? | charmcraft | closed | Requested CI documentation for packing and publishing charms. Maintainers initially proposed creating dedicated GitHub Actions. Closed after official GitHub Actions and documentation were implemented, resolving the integration request. |