Skip to content

Derive architecture from underlying runner machine architecture #418

Closed

Description

@bbednarek

Description:
The target architecture parameter has default value: x64. It would be nice to derive it from underlying runner machine architecture e.g. if the runners run on ARM64 then default value would be aarch64.

Justification:
The aim is to keep the github runner pipelines agnostic to the underlying architecture of the machine where it runs e.g. we are migrating from X64 to ARM64 machines and it would be great to keep generic pipeline with a following step

      - uses: actions/setup-java@v3
        with:
          distribution: 'adopt'
          java-version: '17'
          cache: 'gradle'

instead of specifying architecture parameter. Such a change would be backward compatible, because the default value x64 would stay if underlying machine is X64.

Alternative solution would be to accept RUNNER_ARCH environment variable as default, but even now supplying it without additional mapping is not possible, because possible values (X86, X64, ARM, or ARM64) are not compatible with architecture parameter.

Are you willing to submit a PR?
I am not familiar with Typescript, but I can try :)

Activity

  1. dmitry-shibanov commented on Dec 4, 2022

    @dmitry-shibanov
    Contributor

    Hello @bbednarek. Thank you for your feature request. Actually, we had a similar pull request to resolve the issue. Does the issue reproduce on the self-hosted agent ?

    Could you please send the SHA for setup-java ? You can find it in Set up job step:
    image

  2. self-assigned this
    on Dec 5, 2022
  3. bbednarek commented on Dec 5, 2022

    @bbednarek
    Author

    @dmitry-shibanov thanks for the quick suggestion. I double check it and it turns out that I was using actions/setup-java@v2. Once I upgraded to actions/setup-java@v3 everything works.
    It would be nice to update documentation though.

  4. dmitry-shibanov commented on Dec 5, 2022

    @dmitry-shibanov
    Contributor

    Thank you for your response @bbednarek. I'll keep the issue opened until we make changes to the documentation.

  5. added
    documentationImprovements or additions to documentation
    and removed
    feature requestNew feature or request to improve the current logic
    on Dec 5, 2022
  6. panticmilos commented on Dec 20, 2022

    @panticmilos
    Contributor

    hi @bbednarek, I will close this issue since we adapted the documentation by your suggestion :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Labels

documentationImprovements or additions to documentation

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions