Skip to content

Conversation

@JKRhb
Copy link
Member

@JKRhb JKRhb commented Oct 13, 2023

As discussed in #882, this PR reintroduces automated testing with Windows and macOS on the master branch. To limit the use of macOS and Windows to the master branch, I adjusted the testing matrix so that the two OSs are excluded if the current branch should not be master. This rendered the other workflow definition file obsolete, which is why I removed it.

While I was at it, I slightly adjusted the on section in the workflow file so that the workflow only runs in the push case when it is a push to the master branch. This resolves the slight annoyance that the CI ran twice for some reason in the case of a PR coming from a fork.

With this PR, we could consider #882 resolved. However, we could also leave it open and evaluate if macOS and Windows testing should be reintroduced for PRs as well.

@JKRhb JKRhb changed the title Reintroduce macOS and Windows testing on the master branch ci: reintroduce macOS and Windows testing on the master branch Oct 13, 2023
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 13, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (master@b44448b). Click here to learn what that means.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master    #1116   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   75.67%           
=========================================
  Files             ?       80           
  Lines             ?    16159           
  Branches          ?     1520           
=========================================
  Hits              ?    12229           
  Misses            ?     3888           
  Partials          ?       42           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Member

@danielpeintner danielpeintner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

The only use-case I have in mind is the following. At the moment MacOS and Windows are run only against master. Good so far, However, how can we (even manually) trigger the CI to run against all OS'es ... because we want to check that also in some special cases...

@JKRhb
Copy link
Member Author

JKRhb commented Oct 13, 2023

I think with the workflow_dispatch case added, we should be able to run the workflow for certain branches :) At least that seems to be the case with the current full CI workflow:

image

@JKRhb
Copy link
Member Author

JKRhb commented Oct 13, 2023

Hmm. On second thought, that probably does not change the logic within the CI matrix. Maybe there could be another case added for that?

@JKRhb
Copy link
Member Author

JKRhb commented Oct 13, 2023

Hmm. On second thought, that probably does not change the logic within the CI matrix. Maybe there could be another case added for that?

Not entirely sure if it works, but if it does, the last commit should have added it in ;)

@relu91
Copy link
Member

relu91 commented Oct 13, 2023

I'm not entirely convinced about narrowing down the matrix to only work on merge. I would like to know immediately if a PR is breaking and fix the errors in the PR. I appreciate the effort, but my preference would be to wait longer and be sure that we have all greens.

@JKRhb
Copy link
Member Author

JKRhb commented Oct 13, 2023

I'm not entirely convinced about narrowing down the matrix to only work on merge. I would like to know immediately if a PR is breaking and fix the errors in the PR. I appreciate the effort, but my preference would be to wait longer and be sure that we have all greens.

Yeah, I think we can definitely go this route, as mentioned in the issue, the total time is now about 8 minutes which should be fine as, if something should be completely broken, we will notice it much earlier on ubuntu-latest. I will open another PR as an alternative to this one.

@JKRhb
Copy link
Member Author

JKRhb commented Oct 13, 2023

I just opened #1121 as alternative :)

@danielpeintner
Copy link
Member

I just opened #1121 as alternative :)

Yes, maybe that's better...

@relu91 relu91 closed this in #1121 Oct 15, 2023
@JKRhb JKRhb deleted the ci branch October 15, 2023 14:51
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.

3 participants