Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Split CI into build, lint, test #32

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 13, 2021

Conversation

bollwyvl
Copy link
Contributor

This adds a couple jobs, and coverage on more python/os/nodes.

My self-PR with all the changes, though in fighting CI, I mostly force-pushed, so this diff is as readable as it's going to get.

Some notable deltas (aside from the main workflow file change):

  • removes jupyter_packaging (and pyproject.toml altogether)
    • I couldn't get it to work correctly with caching/installing, and don't really care to, since I don't know what it buys us vs standard tools, aside from not having to type jlpm and jlpm build, which seems.... dubious.
  • skips the known fails

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Mar 12, 2021

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (master@67352f7). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master      #32   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   89.85%           
=========================================
  Files             ?       13           
  Lines             ?      936           
  Branches          ?        0           
=========================================
  Hits              ?      841           
  Misses            ?       95           
  Partials          ?        0           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 67352f7...639f5b7. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Member

@fcollonval fcollonval left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @bollwyvl

I have two questions otherwise this is great.

I'll rebase the port to JLab3 once this is merged.

Comment on lines 162 to 165
- name: Install JS Dependencies
if: ${{ steps.cache-node-modules.outputs.cache-hit != 'true' }}
run: jlpm --prefer-offline --frozen-lockfile

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a reason to install JS dependencies once more (already in l154)?

Suggested change
- name: Install JS Dependencies
if: ${{ steps.cache-node-modules.outputs.cache-hit != 'true' }}
run: jlpm --prefer-offline --frozen-lockfile
- name: Install JS Dependencies
if: ${{ steps.cache-node-modules.outputs.cache-hit != 'true' }}
run: jlpm --prefer-offline --frozen-lockfile

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yup!

setup.cfg Outdated
name = jupyterlab_pullrequests
version = attr: jupyterlab_pullrequests._version.__version__
description = Pull Requests for JupyterLab
python_requires = >=3.6
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
python_requires = >=3.6

The correct one is in [options]

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

cleaned up, thanks!

@bollwyvl
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'll rebase the port to JLab3 once this is merged.

I am happy to help on that, but yeah, let's get it merged first. On jupyterlab-lsp, we've found when keeping two branches going, at least having the CI be basically the same is pretty important. A number of the checks we can hide behind if: marks to just not do stuff on the test machines... browser_check does a huge node install (because puppetteer), so we might lose that... but again, when it fails, it doesn't tell one much... I'd rather hold out for whatever we choose for #31.

@fcollonval
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the quick correction.

browser_check does a huge node install (because puppetteer), so we might lose that...

Agree it is not of much help. I let you decide if you want to drop it now or as part of #31

Feel free to merge and if you want to update #29 be my guest 😃 I'm working on JS testing - restoring the existing one at least.

@bollwyvl
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'll merge this, as-is, and make a sub-pr against #29 so you're not fighting too many beasts at once!

@bollwyvl bollwyvl merged commit c081dbd into jupyterlab:master Mar 13, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Improve Release Engineering
3 participants