Moved repository from Travis to GitHub Actions

[evaherrada]

No description provided.

[ladyada]

failed to pass

[siddacious]

@dherrada Let's wait on this one. I'll adjust the priority

[siddacious]

@tannewt Can you take a look at the pylint failures? I'm wondering if they're caused by the actions change or if they were already there.

[siddacious]

@dhalbert if you could take a look at the pylint failures and let Dylan or I know if they were something that the Actions switchover, perhaps because of a difference in how pylint is being called it would help move this PR towards resolution.

[siddacious]

@dhalbert @tannewt nm, I figured it out; It looks like the failures were expected and numerous enough that you added the ignores to the pylint invocation rather than touching a bunch of files.

At least for now the actions setup doesn't allow for a per-repo override of the default pylint invocation, so I'll put in a separate PR to add the required ignores to the files themselves. Once we allow for overriding we can revert that patch.

[tannewt]

@siddacious sounds good

[evaherrada]

@siddacious working on fixing merge conflicts now

[evaherrada]

@siddacious Ok. Looks like this is passing. After some googling and trying to fix this, I'm still not sure how to fix the merge conflict and since not many other people are online I've asked a friend of mine who is really good at git how I would go about fixing this, but it might take him a while to respond, so next time you're online, if I haven't fixed it by then, it'd be great to get some guidance on this.

[dhalbert]

@dherrada You can merge from upstream (and fix any merge conflicts). Do you have the upstream remote set? If not, do:

git remote add adafruit https://github.com/adafruit/Adafruit_CircuitPython_BLE
git remote -v    # check the remotes

Then do:

git fetch adafruit
git merge adafruit/master
# fix any merge conflicts with `git mergetool`
git push

[evaherrada]

@dhalbert thanks. I’ll try that

[siddacious]

This shouldn't be necessary, or at least that was the point of the other PR. Were you still getting failures without it?

[evaherrada]

@siddacious Yeah, because this branch still has the files without the disables in the classes themselves. After this gets merged, I'll make another PR removing that disable.

[evaherrada]

@siddacious A small correction. It was necessary before I did the merge (thanks @dhalbert) but now that I've done the merge, it isn't. Thanks for pointing that out.