Skip to content

Travis is done and never coming back #946

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 15, 2022
Merged

Travis is done and never coming back #946

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 15, 2022

Conversation

chrisseaton
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@chrisseaton chrisseaton requested a review from eregon March 15, 2022 01:15
@@ -2,14 +2,7 @@
require 'simplecov'
require 'coveralls'

if ENV['TRAVIS']
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should it be ENV['CI'] instead?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The branch hasn't been run the whole time we've been using GitHub Actions. If we want a different coverage output format in the future we can pick it then.

@eregon eregon merged commit 77a85fb into master Mar 15, 2022
@eregon eregon deleted the travis branch March 15, 2022 12:16
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ def on_message(message)
end
end

it 'terminates with all its children', notravis: true do
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder if this tag was somehow avoiding running transient tests in CI.
Maybe the failure in https://github.com/ruby-concurrency/concurrent-ruby/runs/5553488676?check_suite_focus=true is related (but maybe not)

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Given the Rakefile above it sounds like they were excluded, even on GitHub Actions before this PR

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Doesn't seem to be related to that particular failure - which I think is a relatively new spec anyway?

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.

2 participants