Preferably use quarto actions to publish when they work

[jchiquet]

The rendering is currently done with a call to 'quarto render' via bash, the quarto publish action not working with conda. An issue has been filed about this. It seems that the compilation is a bit faster by this way, so we would have to gain.

[fradav]

I don’t think not using their official actions is really an issue : ATM their actions are just barebone (they’re just calls to "render/publish") and lack a lot of options.

I don’t understand what do you mean by "compilation is a bit faster", actions can’t speedup compilations, they’re just javascript scripts executed inside a VM.

We could preload the conda env as a pre-render project script, but it will need another action script for that: not worth the hassle, IMHO.

[jchiquet]

I don’t think not using their official actions is really an issue : ATM their actions are just barebone (they’re just calls to "render/publish") and lack a lot of options.

Ok, but in the end, we could expect them having more comprehensive actions, and it is also a way to support them. Anyway, ok to use our own actions.

I don’t understand what do you mean by "compilation is a bit faster", actions can’t speedup compilations, they’re just javascript scripts executed inside a VM.

It was probably due to the use of pip in place of conda.

We could preload the conda env as a pre-render project script, but it will need another action script for that: not worth the hassle, IMHO.

Ok, agree with that. But an example with the possibility of caching the conda-env would be nice. What do you think?

[fradav]

I don’t think not using their official actions is really an issue : ATM their actions are just barebone (they’re just calls to "render/publish") and lack a lot of options.

Ok, but in the end, we could expect them having more comprehensive actions, and it is also a way to support them. Anyway, ok to use our own actions.

I don’t understand what do you mean by "compilation is a bit faster", actions can’t speedup compilations, they’re just javascript scripts executed inside a VM.

It was probably due to the use of pip in place of conda.

Anything is faster than conda 😬
For the CI, I use Micromamba as a drop-in replacement for conda (and compatible with it). It’s several orders of magnitudes faster.

We could preload the conda env as a pre-render project script, but it will need another action script for that: not worth the hassle, IMHO.

Ok, agree with that. But an example with the possibility of caching the conda-env would be nice. What do you think?

It is already in the CI:

[jchiquet]

Ok thanks !