Migrate CI to GH actions

[elacuesta]

Based on #4814

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #4924 (988d733) into master (39bc9a4) will decrease coverage by 0.17%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4924      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.01%   87.83%   -0.18%     
==========================================
  Files         158      158              
  Lines        9719     9719              
  Branches     1433     1433              
==========================================
- Hits         8554     8537      -17     
- Misses        910      928      +18     
+ Partials      255      254       -1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
scrapy/robotstxt.py	75.30% <0.00%> (-22.23%)	⬇️
scrapy/extensions/memusage.py	50.00% <0.00%> (+1.08%)	⬆️

[elacuesta]

@Gallaecio @kmike @wRAR Uploading to the testing PyPI works: see https://github.com/elacuesta/scrapy/runs/1605715787 for 5521f2b (removed other jobs to save time, hardcoded name and version - different name since scrapy is taken). Available at https://test.pypi.org/project/Scrapy-Test/

[kmike]

Nice @elacuesta!

I meant to ask this before - do you know if wwe can have several workflow files, and e.g. separate test workflow from the publishing workflow?

[elacuesta]

Indeed it's possible, I just split them into four workflows, looks like a good idea to improve organization. One missing thing though seems to be the ability to depend on jobs from other workflows (the needs key only works within the same workflow, as seen in this test flow). Initially I configured the jobs to run the publish one only if the previous ones succeeded, but perhaps we don't mind about that?

[kmike]

This is super-minor, but Github shows status as Tests - Ubuntu / Tests - Ubuntu

[elacuesta]

Right, seems hard to change though. If the workflow name is omitted, the full name of the file is used, while if the job name is omitted, the job key is used:

I tried setting the same name for the two test files, hoping they would get grouped, but it wasn't the case:

[kmike]

Again, a nitpick, but what do you think about using shorter names? This is how the popup looks like, when you click on a check mark near a commit:

Proposal: instead of naming a job "tests-ubuntu", name it "tox"; the same for windows. Keep workflow names as-is.

[elacuesta]

Indeed, names are still too long, thanks for insisting on this. I just renamed both the workflows and the jobs, looks much cleaner to me, what do you think?

[Gallaecio]

Looks good to me. 🤞 about publish.yml.

[Gallaecio]

Given there’s 1 badge per workflow, I wonder if maybe it would make sense to keep only 2 workflows, tests and publish. But badges are not really a strong argument, so do not take it to heart, just a thought :)

[kmike]

👍