Build source and documentation in GitHub Actions #71
Conversation
| name: "Build Python source and docs artifacts" | ||
|
|
||
| jobs: | ||
| source-and-docs: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would like to add a GitHub Environment to allow staging and reviewing an execution w/ approvals. I can create a separate GitHub issue for this if it's desirable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have this for Windows installers so yeah, that would be nice!
| - name: "Setup Python" | ||
| uses: actions/setup-python@65d7f2d534ac1bc67fcd62888c5f4f3d2cb2b236 # v4.7.1 | ||
| with: | ||
| python-version: 3.11 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably should update this to 3.x? Wish there was a way to track this with Dependabot.
| uses: actions/upload-artifact@a8a3f3ad30e3422c9c7b888a15615d19a852ae32 # v3.1.3 | ||
| # Conditionally run this step if there is a 'docs/' directory. | ||
| # Docs aren't built for alpha or beta releases. | ||
| if: ${{ hashFiles('cpython/${{ inputs.cpython_release }}/docs') != '' }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This conditional doesn't match the above, but I figure if docs got built then we'd want to upload them as artifacts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In this run:
https://github.com/python/release-tools/actions/runs/8350750234/job/22857827913
the docs upload was skipped for whatever reason. They were built though. The source artifacts uploaded just fine. I don't immediately see why that would be so I just built the docs locally after for this release. I compared the logs from my local run with the docs build on GHA, they look the same. They both have the line:
2024-03-19T22:28:44.9625823Z chdir'ing to Python-3.10.14/Doc
2024-03-19T22:28:44.9626238Z Removing doc build artifacts
This comes from here:
Lines 342 to 350 in c1fceb7
which you can see is immediately preceded by a shutil.copytree, which in my case at least copied everything where expected. So maybe hashFiles does something weird. IDK.
| cwd=str(the_dir / "installation"), | ||
| text=True, | ||
| ) | ||
| def wait_for_source_and_docs_artifacts(db: DbfilenameShelf) -> None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This task I'd like feedback if this matches expectations of release managers, I saw there was another section that has "waiting" similar to this.
|
|
||
| # We ask for human verification at this point since this commit SHA is 'locked in' | ||
| print() | ||
| print(f"Go to https://github.com/{origin_remote_github_owner}/cpython/commit/{commit_sha}") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are extra steps for ensuring that the commit SHA isn't on a fork and that there haven't been any unexpected upstream changes to the fork since the local commit.
| while not all(path.exists() for path in wait_for_paths): | ||
| time.sleep(1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe this should exit if after a certain amount of seconds some files are still missing (e.g. because they haven't been created due to some error)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This follows the same model as the "waiting for binary installers" routine which waited forever. I'm not sure how release managers would like to use this tool so would need feedback if there's a preference.
Co-authored-by: Ezio Melotti <ezio.melotti@gmail.com>
|
All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement. |
Co-authored-by: Ezio Melotti <ezio.melotti@gmail.com>
|
I'll do a dry run of 3.13 alpha 3 with this after 3.12.1 goes out. |
Part of #66
This PR accomplishes two things that are related:
release.py(due to now being used for automation) to a task withinrun_release.py.I've tested the GitHub Action on my own fork of
release-tools, however I haven't tested therun_release.pyscript since it requires a lot of credentials and setup (would appreciate if it's possible to dry-run this sort of thing?)I'm going to leave some comments of my own below based on this PR, happy to revise the implementation or the direction if this doesn't match expectations.