CI/CD?

[PockyBum522]

Apologies if I missed it anywhere, but I've just set up CI/CD for one of my nuget packages and if you make the main branch only for releases, I can set up something where InventorShims will build and automatically version itself + deploy to nuget on a commit to main.

Let me know if this sounds helpful!

[jordanrobot]

That would be great! I've put together a bare bones nuke project for this repo, but it doesn't do much. We can delete as needed.

I was also using gitversion to manage to version number with semantic versioning. Not sure what the proposed automatic versioning would use in the ci/cd pipeline.

The only thing I don't think we can resolve is automatically running integration tests that require an inventor install. If we want to run a unit test suite on CI, I can split off the integration tests into a different test project and that could be ignored by the pipeline.

Also, not sure how you're planning on building without the inventor interop library. I haven't checked into if we can put it up on nuget/GitHub, mostly because I'm afraid Autodesk may say no. There is a nuget package that has it, but I haven't inspected it to make sure the library is legit.

Triggering a release on master/main is fine by me. Perhaps we should change the branch name master to main while we're at it. The other option would be to use a release branch, but Id rather not bother -- we're not doing bug fixes for older releases.

[PockyBum522]

That all sounds great.

Integration tests would still need to be run on a computer with Inventor, that is correct. We can set up the CI/CD to only run the unit tests before build.

Automatic versioning is mostly for nuget knowing there's something new to show people. We can discuss how we'd like it to work or if we want to do manual versioning somehow. I'll think about it a minute and propose something.

Setting up Integration Tests and Unit Tests in separate projects sounds perfect.

I'll look into the dll issue. I have a few contacts at AutoDesk, should my google-fu fail.

And yeah, we should likely have main, dev, and then we'd branch when working on specific things.

[PockyBum522]

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fbx-forum/about-fbx-sdk-license/td-p/4032339

Although this is not about the Inventor SDK specifically, it is about a similar issue. I'm going to research this more, but it looks like the thing AutoDesk cares about the most is disclaiming liability when using the SDK. I think we're good. I'm going to do a little more research.

[PockyBum522]

I'm just going to message that one autoDesk human because the actual Inventor License is written in extremely unclear language.