-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25
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
refactor CI and use tox.ini
with Tox 4 and PEP517 build
#108
Conversation
e6cb5b8
to
b4a69e0
Compare
tox.ini
with TOx 4 and PEP517 buildtox.ini
with Tox 4 and PEP517 build
b4a69e0
to
2a007ec
Compare
Codecov ReportBase: 87.68% // Head: 97.96% // Increases project coverage by
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #108 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 87.68% 97.96% +10.27%
===========================================
Files 10 14 +4
Lines 1714 1275 -439
===========================================
- Hits 1503 1249 -254
+ Misses 211 26 -185
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
cache: 'pip' | ||
cache-dependency-path: setup.cfg | ||
- run: pip install -e ".[test]" pytest-xdist pytest-cov | ||
- run: pip install "asdf @ git+https://github.com/asdf-format/asdf.git" |
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.
Any idea why coverage tests were running with asdf dev?
deps = | ||
flake8 | ||
commands = | ||
flake8 --count src tests {posargs} |
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.
Nice addition to include tests in the flake8 check.
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.
Thanks for updating this. Looks good to me.
@zacharyburnett and/or @nden Is there someone with the required permissions that can update the branch protection rules to reflect the CI changes in this PR?
An example PR with old style expectations and new CI is here: #110 |
sure thing, changed in the settings |
In an attempt to standardize CI across repos and make it less confusing, this PR reintroduces
tox
and uses thetoxenv
naming scheme from the Romancal repo.Additionally,
toxenvs
in thecheck
matrix run concurrently with other tests.Checklist
CHANGES.rst
(either inBug Fixes
orChanges to API
)