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

GitHub Actions CI #142

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from
Closed

GitHub Actions CI #142

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

twm
Copy link
Collaborator

@twm twm commented Dec 22, 2020

Travis is queuing builds for ages.

I've also added Python 3.9 to CI and the package metadata. I notice that 2.6 isn't in CI. Should it still be listed as supported?

@twm twm marked this pull request as ready for review December 22, 2020 22:00
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 23, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #142 (ddc04e1) into master (1949b07) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #142   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.69%   98.69%           
=======================================
  Files          13       13           
  Lines        1840     1840           
  Branches      212      212           
=======================================
  Hits         1816     1816           
  Misses         12       12           
  Partials       12       12           

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 1949b07...ddc04e1. Read the comment docs.

@twm twm mentioned this pull request Dec 23, 2020
@wsanchez
Copy link
Contributor

Hrm, I think we should add 2.6 to the matrix. That does seem like an oversight…
We bend over a bit to support 2.6 syntax, so it should be tested.

@wsanchez
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not seeing the workflows running… is that because this is an external PR and not a branch?

@twm
Copy link
Collaborator Author

twm commented Dec 27, 2020

I honestly don't know. GHA is not great with the feedback... if you typo something in the YAML it doesn't tell you so it could be anything. I'll try creating a separate PR that's more obviously correct.

@twm twm mentioned this pull request Dec 27, 2020
@twm
Copy link
Collaborator Author

twm commented Dec 27, 2020

Nothing seems to be happening on #143, so I guess I can't configure GHA from my fork.

@wsanchez
Copy link
Contributor

@twm I'm getting ready for some travel this week but when I'm back in California, I can try making a branch with this and see if that works.

@wsanchez
Copy link
Contributor

wsanchez commented Jan 1, 2021

@twm I added you as an admin to the repo, so you should be able to make a branch with this diff if you can get to it before me.

@twm
Copy link
Collaborator Author

twm commented Jan 5, 2021

Thanks @wsanchez. I've recreated this PR over at #149. Closing this one in favor of that one, where GHA seems to be working.

@twm twm closed this Jan 5, 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.

3 participants