-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
feat: hardcode pkg version number #332
Conversation
Codecov ReportPatch coverage has no change and project coverage change:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #332 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.78% 91.84% +0.06%
==========================================
Files 29 29
Lines 876 871 -5
==========================================
- Hits 804 800 -4
+ Misses 72 71 -1
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was testing with Pkg.project().version
instead of VersionNumber(0,2,0)
. It seems to return the version fine and updating the test worked as well. However, it tries to activate a Julia REPL and IFT when I try to commit the changes.
I'll test this within IFTPipeline. Thanks! |
Co-authored-by: Timothy Divoll <timothy.divoll@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Timothy Divoll <timothy.divoll@gmail.com>
When used within IFTPipeline it returns IFTPipeline's version :/. Going back to testing with hard-coding the version number. |
@tdivoll I think hard coding the version number is probably the way to go. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds good to me, it is a minor task to update when we update version numbers.
This approach is working well with IFTPipeline!