starter-workflows

Pros of azure-pipelines-yaml

• More extensive integration with Azure services and ecosystems
• Supports multi-stage pipelines with dependencies and conditions
• Offers more advanced deployment scenarios and approvals

Cons of azure-pipelines-yaml

• Steeper learning curve compared to GitHub Actions
• Less community-contributed workflows and actions
• Primarily focused on Azure DevOps, limiting flexibility for other platforms

Code Comparison

starter-workflows:

name: CI
on: [push]
jobs:
  build:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
    - uses: actions/checkout@v2
    - run: npm ci
    - run: npm test

azure-pipelines-yaml:

trigger:
- main
pool:
  vmImage: 'ubuntu-latest'
steps:
- task: NodeTool@0
  inputs:
    versionSpec: '14.x'
- script: |
    npm install
    npm test

Both repositories provide starter templates for CI/CD pipelines, but they cater to different platforms. starter-workflows focuses on GitHub Actions, offering a wide range of templates for various languages and frameworks. It's more accessible for GitHub users and has a larger community contribution base.

azure-pipelines-yaml is tailored for Azure DevOps, providing more complex pipeline configurations and better integration with Azure services. It's ideal for teams heavily invested in the Microsoft ecosystem but may be overkill for simpler projects or those not using Azure DevOps.

Pros of Argo Workflows

• More powerful and flexible workflow engine, supporting complex DAGs and parallelism
• Kubernetes-native, allowing for better resource management and scalability
• Supports artifact passing between steps and caching for improved efficiency

Cons of Argo Workflows

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and Kubernetes-centric design
• Requires a Kubernetes cluster, which may be overkill for smaller projects
• Less integrated with GitHub's ecosystem compared to GitHub Actions

Code Comparison

Argo Workflows:

apiVersion: argoproj.io/v1alpha1
kind: Workflow
spec:
  entrypoint: hello-world
  templates:
  - name: hello-world
    container:
      image: docker/whalesay
      command: [cowsay]
      args: ["Hello World"]

GitHub Actions (starter-workflows):

name: CI
on: [push]
jobs:
  build:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
    - uses: actions/checkout@v2
    - run: echo "Hello World"

Argo Workflows offers more detailed control over container execution, while GitHub Actions provides a simpler syntax for common CI/CD tasks. Argo Workflows is better suited for complex, distributed workflows, whereas GitHub Actions excels in straightforward GitHub-centric automation.

Pros of act

• Allows local testing of GitHub Actions workflows without pushing to a repository
• Supports running workflows in Docker containers, simulating GitHub's environment
• Faster iteration and debugging of workflows without consuming GitHub Actions minutes

Cons of act

• May not perfectly replicate GitHub's environment, leading to potential discrepancies
• Limited support for certain GitHub Actions features and integrations
• Requires Docker to be installed and running on the local machine

Code Comparison

act:

# Run a specific job from the workflow file
act -j build

# Run the entire workflow with verbose output
act -v

starter-workflows:

name: CI
on: [push]
jobs:
  build:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v2
      - run: npm ci
      - run: npm test

Summary

act is a tool for locally testing GitHub Actions workflows, offering faster iteration and debugging without consuming GitHub resources. However, it may not perfectly replicate GitHub's environment and requires Docker. starter-workflows provides a collection of template workflows for various languages and tools, ready to be used in GitHub repositories. While starter-workflows offers a quick start for setting up CI/CD pipelines, act focuses on local testing and development of workflows.

Pros of azure-quickstart-templates

• Extensive collection of Azure-specific templates for various services and scenarios
• Includes detailed documentation and parameter files for each template
• Supports complex, multi-resource deployments in Azure

Cons of azure-quickstart-templates

• Limited to Azure platform, not applicable for other cloud providers or CI/CD systems
• Requires knowledge of Azure Resource Manager (ARM) template syntax
• May have a steeper learning curve for users unfamiliar with Azure

Code Comparison

starter-workflows:

name: Node.js CI
on: [push]
jobs:
  build:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
    - uses: actions/checkout@v2
    - name: Use Node.js
      uses: actions/setup-node@v1

azure-quickstart-templates:

{
  "$schema": "https://schema.management.azure.com/schemas/2019-04-01/deploymentTemplate.json#",
  "contentVersion": "1.0.0.0",
  "parameters": {
    "storageAccountName": {
      "type": "string",
      "metadata": {
        "description": "Storage Account Name"
      }
    }
  }
}

The starter-workflows repository focuses on providing YAML-based workflow templates for GitHub Actions, suitable for various CI/CD scenarios across different platforms. In contrast, azure-quickstart-templates offers JSON-based ARM templates specifically for deploying resources in Azure, with a more complex structure but greater flexibility for Azure-specific deployments.