-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 414
Merge python-integration.yml into python-ci.yml #1963
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
Conversation
.github/workflows/python-ci.yml
Outdated
| - name: Install | ||
| run: make install | ||
| - name: Run integration tests | ||
| run: make test-integration |
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 dont think we want to do this.
L68's test-coverage runs both the unit tests and integrations tests
This line here runs the integration tests again.
I think we'd want to get rid of one OR have one run unit tests and another run integration tests.
Looking at both github actions. python-ci runs the matrix for python v3.9-3.12 whereas python-integration only runs for the default python version.
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.
Ah, nice catch. Personally, I like the idea of having them stay separate, so they can run in parallel. I pushed a change separating them while still running the full Python version matrix for both unit and integration tests with coverage. What do you think?
| - name: Linters | ||
| run: make lint | ||
| - name: Tests | ||
| run: make test-coverage |
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.
Ah, I see. This will also run the integration tests 🤣
.github/workflows/python-ci.yml
Outdated
| steps: | ||
| - uses: actions/checkout@v4 | ||
| with: | ||
| fetch-depth: 2 |
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 specific reason for depth 2? The default is 1.
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.
This was copy and paste from the old python-integration.yml file. I did however check on who introduced it in the first place... and it turns out it was you at this commit :)
Shall I remove it? I don't see a reason either?
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.
yep 1 is enough :D
kevinjqliu
left a comment
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.
LGTM! just small change on the fetch-depth
<!--
Thanks for opening a pull request!
-->
<!-- In the case this PR will resolve an issue, please replace
${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID} below with the actual Github issue id. -->
<!-- Closes #${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID} -->
Closes apache#1942
# Rationale for this change
This condenses similar CI logic into one place
# Are these changes tested?
# Are there any user-facing changes?
No
<!-- In the case of user-facing changes, please add the changelog label.
-->
Closes #1942
Rationale for this change
This condenses similar CI logic into one place
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?
No