You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Current pytest orb supports pipenv, but more and more repositories in my company are being migrated to poetry ( https://python-poetry.org/ ).
I could work on a PR to add support for poetry in the pytest orb, on top of the existing pipenv support.
Caller would be able to select between the 2 dependency managers, and pipenv would be of course kept as the default as to not break anything.
I actually already started this work, but I'm wondering if such PR would be welcome, or if it's something that maintainers would prefer to avoid (as it does make the job more complex).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We haven't used poetry too much, having just crawled out of requirements.txt into pipenv.
If the changes are straightforward, I don't see why we wouldn't take a PR. As the changes get more complex, the lack of tests on orbs for functionality we don't personally use could be a problem.
I'm surprised anyone would be using our orbs as is. While a public repo, since CircleCI private orbs didn't exist when we started, we do assume some @arrai-innovations specific related to uploading coverage/badges, repo architecture, and server environments regarding executors.
Are you all using a wrapping orb and splicing the commands yourself, or are you just using the jobs as is?
Current pytest orb supports
pipenv
, but more and more repositories in my company are being migrated topoetry
( https://python-poetry.org/ ).I could work on a PR to add support for
poetry
in thepytest
orb, on top of the existingpipenv
support.Caller would be able to select between the 2 dependency managers, and
pipenv
would be of course kept as the default as to not break anything.I actually already started this work, but I'm wondering if such PR would be welcome, or if it's something that maintainers would prefer to avoid (as it does make the job more complex).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: