Skip to content

Revert PR #125#126

Merged
aboydnw merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
revert/pr-125
Apr 22, 2026
Merged

Revert PR #125#126
aboydnw merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
revert/pr-125

Conversation

@aboydnw
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@aboydnw aboydnw commented Apr 22, 2026

Reverts #125 — accidental merge

@aboydnw aboydnw requested a review from gadomski as a code owner April 22, 2026 22:17
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@aboydnw aboydnw merged commit 81e9694 into main Apr 22, 2026
3 checks passed
@aboydnw aboydnw deleted the revert/pr-125 branch April 22, 2026 22:18
@aboydnw aboydnw mentioned this pull request Apr 22, 2026
4 tasks
aboydnw added a commit that referenced this pull request May 5, 2026
Honestly not sure what happened with #125 
I was adding another commit to fix the deploy error manually from vs
code and next thing I look up and it says I merged it. I checked claude
code output and didn't see anything that said merge, which is also not
one of the actions I have given it permission to do.
Anyways, I created and merged #126 to revert it and then created this pr
for you to review. Let me know if that's the not the appropriate steps
to take, in case I run into this situation again.

## NPM module and PyPi publication

Makes the previous uv run contributor-network build step data only and
adds npm run build to build the frontend.
Allows the Python package to ship on PyPI without requiring npm/Node on
consumer machines.

Some smaller changes as a result:

- Remove subprocess call from Python build command
- Rename package to open-source-contributor-network (PyPI-unique name)
- Drop unused jinja2 dependency
- Update CI workflows to run both steps separately
- Add test guarding the decoupling
- Enrich PyPI metadata (license, authors, keywords, classifiers)

### For specific attention during review:

- [ ] Is this what you had in mind with
#124 ?
- [ ]  Metadata for PyPi publication, would you change anything?
- [ ] Confirming no visual changes to the app (I tested and didn't see
anything broken)
- [ ] Do you think we should also change the name of the old uv run
contributor-network build step to differentiate from npm run build or is
the similarity acceptable?
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.

1 participant