-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 58
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
Tox cleanups and use tox in PR tests #73
Changes from 5 commits
1dc8b99
fdbaac7
e1f64eb
c4c9755
c6e6d9d
525bec6
3c48d33
6fbd56c
5936537
6f2f33a
8bf5f12
c586631
394375c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ matrix: | |
install: | ||
- pip install --upgrade tox coveralls | ||
|
||
script: tox | ||
script: tox --recreate test | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This is fine, but technically we are this close 👌 to not needing this file anymore! travis is still running builds but those builds only go on to power the coverage reporting service. Once we figure out how to use github actions for that, we can eliminate travis altogether. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. oh come to think of it, the current github actions are using the example build scripts that are provided by github, which, I believe, means that it ignores our linter configuration and potentially some other stuff? I guess we could ask ourselves whether we want to continue with tox, in which case we probably should switch the github actions to use tox, or otherwise we could eliminate tox altogether? But if we eliminate it, then it's more annoying to run the tests locally... so maybe we should make the github actions use tox? I had no reason not to use tox with them initially, other than that I was more concerned with getting the actions to run properly at all, than i was with the specifics of how we run the tests. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. oh, good point. I'd lean toward using tox for the github actions too. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Switched the github action over to tox as part of this PR and it seems fine (amazingly). Tox is set up to use @mchalek which tool would you prefer we standardize on? I don't really have a preference. |
||
|
||
after_success: | ||
- ./run_coveralls.sh |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ deps = pytest==3.8.1 | |
extras = | ||
github | ||
commands = | ||
pytest -vv test | ||
pytest -vv {posargs} | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. yup love it 👍 |
||
|
||
[testenv:py27] | ||
commands = | ||
|
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ commands = | |
--cov=boundary_layer_default_plugin \ | ||
--cov-report=term-missing \ | ||
--cov-report=xml \ | ||
test | ||
{posargs} | ||
|
||
[testenv:lint] | ||
commands = | ||
|
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.
No one was more surprised this worked than me.