Skip to content
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

Switch from ailing TravisCI to trendy GitHub Actions #86

Merged
merged 21 commits into from
Oct 31, 2020
Merged

Conversation

exarkun
Copy link
Member

@exarkun exarkun commented Oct 29, 2020

TravisCI is in bad shape these days and not seeming to get any better.

This deletes the TravisCI configuration and adds a GitHub Actions CI configuration.

Somehow the TravisCI configuration worked with a number of organizational problems and legacy choices in the repository. I didn't feel like doing extra work to make GitHub Actions work with that situation. Instead, I fixed those problems and choices alongside these CI configuration changes.

Separating these two things into different PRs doesn't make sense because there's no reason to try to update the TravisCI configuration to work with the fixes and then immediately abandon TravisCI.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Oct 29, 2020

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-1.08%) to 91.962% when pulling 7ecb8cd on github-actions into e84abc9 on master.

maybe being more permissive will help
not sure it makes any actual difference right now though
This is the only way I can figure out to make coverage reports have the right
path names.  The ``[path]source`` trick doesn't work with sources at the top
level, as far as I can tell.

Also this is better repo org anyway.
@exarkun exarkun changed the title first attempt Switch from ailing TravisCI to trendy GitHub Actions Oct 29, 2020
@exarkun
Copy link
Member Author

exarkun commented Oct 29, 2020

Hard to say why coveralls is reporting a coverage decrease. It reports the coverage is lower but it also reports an empty list of coverage changes. Looking at different builds and trying to see the change manually is difficult. Different builds don't even render the same, there is no stable file ordering (even "sort by filename" produces different results on different builds!). Older builds seem to be missing branch coverage even though the travis configuration was explicitly passing --branch.

So presumably the change is an artifact of how coverage is being measured and/or reported. Maybe we are missing the measurement of some coverage that was being covered before or maybe the measurement before was bogus in some way and has accidentally been fixed. I don't know. I am probably not going to try diving through the details too much more to understand this.

@exarkun exarkun requested a review from glyph October 29, 2020 14:44
@exarkun exarkun marked this pull request as ready for review October 29, 2020 22:25
Copy link
Contributor

@mithrandi mithrandi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This all seems good enough to me; the coverage stuff is probably bogus due to the last build being so old. We can always fiddle more once we have green builds again.

@exarkun exarkun merged commit 42762c9 into master Oct 31, 2020
@exarkun exarkun deleted the github-actions branch October 31, 2020 11:53
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.

None yet

3 participants