The author details a frustrating experience with GitHub Actions where a seemingly simple workflow to build and deploy a static website became incredibly complex and time-consuming due to caching issues. Despite attempting various caching strategies and workarounds, builds remained slow and unpredictable, ultimately leading to increased costs and wasted developer time. The author concludes that while GitHub Actions might be suitable for straightforward tasks, its caching mechanism's unreliability makes it a poor choice for more complex projects, especially those involving static site generation. They ultimately opted to migrate to a self-hosted solution for improved control and predictability.
The blog post "I'll think twice before using GitHub Actions again" by Nikola Ninković details a frustrating experience with GitHub Actions, ultimately leading the author to reconsider its use for future projects. Ninković begins by acknowledging the initial appeal of GitHub Actions – its tight integration with GitHub, purported ease of use, and the availability of a free tier. He then proceeds to describe how these initial perceived advantages ultimately transformed into significant drawbacks during his attempt to create a CI/CD pipeline for a static website.
The core issue revolved around caching. While GitHub Actions offers caching mechanisms, Ninković found them to be unreliable and opaque. He explains how he attempted to cache dependencies for his Hugo-based website, anticipating this would significantly speed up build times. However, the cache frequently failed to hit, leading to repeated downloads of dependencies and negating the intended time savings. The author diligently tried various approaches to troubleshoot and rectify the caching issues, meticulously adjusting his workflow file and experimenting with different caching strategies suggested in the documentation and community forums. Despite these efforts, the caching behavior remained erratic and unpredictable, significantly hampering the efficiency of his CI/CD pipeline.
Further compounding the problem was the lack of clear visibility into the caching process. Ninković highlights the difficulty in understanding why the cache was being invalidated or missed. The limited debugging tools and opaque nature of the caching system made it challenging to diagnose the root cause of the failures. This lack of transparency ultimately led to a considerable investment of time and effort in attempting to resolve an issue that ultimately proved intractable.
Ninković contrasts his experience with GitHub Actions to his prior usage of Netlify, a platform specifically designed for hosting and deploying static websites. He emphasizes the seamless and intuitive deployment process offered by Netlify, highlighting its inherent understanding of website deployment workflows and its reliable caching mechanisms. This comparison serves to underscore the perceived shortcomings of GitHub Actions, particularly its complexity and unreliability when applied to specific use cases like static website deployment.
Finally, Ninković concludes by expressing his disillusionment with GitHub Actions. He acknowledges that the platform may be suitable for other types of projects, but asserts that its current implementation presents significant challenges for static website deployment. He states his intention to explore alternative CI/CD solutions in the future, prioritizing platforms that offer greater reliability, transparency, and ease of use when it comes to caching and deployment workflows for his static websites. The overall tone of the post reflects a sentiment of frustration stemming from the significant time and effort invested in attempting to overcome the limitations encountered with GitHub Actions.
Summary of Comments ( 148 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42764762
Hacker News users generally agreed with the author's sentiment about GitHub Actions' complexity and unreliability. Many shared similar experiences with flaky builds, obscure error messages, and difficulty debugging. Several commenters suggested exploring alternatives like GitLab CI, Drone CI, or self-hosted runners for more control and predictability. Some pointed out the benefits of GitHub Actions, such as its tight integration with GitHub and the availability of pre-built actions, but acknowledged the frustrations raised in the article. The discussion also touched upon the trade-offs between convenience and control when choosing a CI/CD solution, with some arguing that the ease of use initially offered by GitHub Actions can be overshadowed by the difficulties encountered as projects grow more complex. A few users offered specific troubleshooting tips or workarounds for common issues, highlighting the community-driven nature of problem-solving around GitHub Actions.
The Hacker News post "I'll think twice before using GitHub Actions again" (linking to an article criticizing GitHub Actions) generated a significant discussion with a variety of viewpoints.
Several commenters agreed with the author's sentiments, sharing their own frustrating experiences with GitHub Actions. These included complaints about opaque pricing, unexpected cost overruns (especially with third-party actions), difficulty debugging complex workflows, and a lack of adequate support from GitHub. One commenter described being "nickeled and dimed" by hidden costs. Another highlighted the frustration of debugging issues across multiple nested actions, with limited visibility into the execution environment. The unpredictable nature of build times and the resulting variability in costs were also mentioned as major downsides.
Some suggested alternatives to GitHub Actions, citing platforms like GitLab CI, Jenkins, and Drone CI as offering more transparency, control, and better value. Specifically, self-hosting runners was brought up as a way to gain more control and potentially reduce costs.
However, other commenters defended GitHub Actions, emphasizing its convenience and tight integration with the GitHub ecosystem. They argued that for smaller projects or individual developers, the benefits of simplicity and ease of use outweigh the potential cost concerns. Several pointed out that the free tier is often sufficient for many use cases, and that with careful planning and monitoring, costs can be managed effectively. One commenter suggested that the author's issues stemmed from a lack of familiarity with the platform rather than inherent flaws in GitHub Actions itself. They emphasized the importance of understanding the pricing structure and utilizing best practices to optimize workflows.
The discussion also touched upon the broader trend of vendor lock-in within the developer ecosystem. Some expressed concern about relying too heavily on GitHub's integrated toolset, making it difficult to migrate to other platforms in the future.
Finally, some commenters offered practical advice for mitigating the issues raised in the original article, such as using self-hosted runners for computationally intensive tasks, carefully reviewing the pricing of third-party actions, and leveraging GitHub Actions' built-in caching mechanisms to optimize performance and reduce costs. One commenter even shared a link to a community-maintained list of free and open-source GitHub Actions.
In summary, the comments section reveals a mixed reception to GitHub Actions. While some users have had negative experiences related to cost, complexity, and debugging, others find it a convenient and valuable tool. The discussion highlights the importance of carefully considering project requirements, understanding the pricing model, and exploring alternative CI/CD solutions before committing to a specific platform.