Skip to content

Include deploy and coverage in GitHub actions #6369

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
4 tasks done
nicoddemus opened this issue Dec 26, 2019 · 5 comments · Fixed by #6468
Closed
4 tasks done

Include deploy and coverage in GitHub actions #6369

nicoddemus opened this issue Dec 26, 2019 · 5 comments · Fixed by #6468
Assignees
@nicoddemus
Labels
type: infrastructure improvement to development/releases/CI structure

Comments

@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

nicoddemus commented Dec 26, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Follow up to #6355:

  • Coverage
  • GitHub release notes
  • Deploy
  • Cleanup Azure and Travis files
@nicoddemus nicoddemus added the type: infrastructure improvement to development/releases/CI structure label Dec 26, 2019
@nicoddemus nicoddemus self-assigned this Dec 26, 2019
@nicoddemus nicoddemus mentioned this issue Jan 7, 2020
Closed
nicoddemus added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 10, 2020
@nicoddemus
Implement code coverage in GitHub actions
d660537 
This overwrites the `codecov.yml` file in the root of the repository with
`codecov-upstream.yml` file (which contains the code-cov token)´, so PRs
and branches on the repository can upload coverage.

Suggestion from here:

#6421 (comment)

Security concerns: the token might be misused, but only to upload bogus coverage
to `codecov.io`, so the team believe this is harmless. If we decide to fallback
from this decision , we just need to revoke the token.

Related to #6369
nicoddemus added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 10, 2020
@nicoddemus
Implement code coverage in GitHub actions
6e5bfff 
This overwrites the `codecov.yml` file in the root of the repository with
`codecov-upstream.yml` file (which contains the code-cov token)´, so PRs
and branches on the repository can upload coverage.

Suggestion from here:

#6421 (comment)

Security concerns: the token might be misused, but only to upload bogus coverage
to `codecov.io`, so the team believe this is harmless. If we decide to fallback
from this decision , we just need to revoke the token.

Related to #6369
nicoddemus added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 11, 2020
@nicoddemus
Implement code coverage in GitHub actions
205252d 
This overwrites the `codecov.yml` file in the root of the repository with
`codecov-upstream.yml` file (which contains the code-cov token)´, so PRs
and branches on the repository can upload coverage.

Suggestion from here:

#6421 (comment)

Security concerns: the token might be misused, but only to upload bogus coverage
to `codecov.io`, so the team believe this is harmless. If we decide to fallback
from this decision , we just need to revoke the token.

Related to #6369
nicoddemus added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 11, 2020
@nicoddemus
Implement code coverage in GitHub actions
49fbd9f 
This overwrites the `codecov.yml` file in the root of the repository with
`codecov-upstream.yml` file (which contains the code-cov token)´, so PRs
and branches on the repository can upload coverage.

Suggestion from here:

#6421 (comment)

Security concerns: the token might be misused, but only to upload bogus coverage
to `codecov.io`, so the team believe this is harmless. If we decide to fallback
from this decision , we just need to revoke the token.

Related to #6369
nicoddemus added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 11, 2020
@nicoddemus
Implement code coverage in GitHub actions
30ec04b 
This overwrites the `codecov.yml` file in the root of the repository with
`codecov-upstream.yml` file (which contains the code-cov token)´, so PRs
and branches on the repository can upload coverage.

Suggestion from here:

#6421 (comment)

Security concerns: the token might be misused, but only to upload bogus coverage
to `codecov.io`, so the team believe this is harmless. If we decide to fallback
from this decision , we just need to revoke the token.

Related to #6369
nicoddemus added a commit to nicoddemus/pytest that referenced this issue Jan 11, 2020
@nicoddemus
Implement code coverage in GitHub actions
a3bc6df 
This overwrites the `codecov.yml` file in the root of the repository with
`codecov-upstream.yml` file (which contains the code-cov token)´, so PRs
and branches on the repository can upload coverage.

Suggestion from here:

pytest-dev#6421 (comment)

Security concerns: the token might be misused, but only to upload bogus coverage
to `codecov.io`, so the team believe this is harmless. If we decide to fallback
from this decision , we just need to revoke the token.

Related to pytest-dev#6369
@nicoddemus nicoddemus mentioned this issue Jan 11, 2020
Merged
@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member Author

#6441 (comment)

nicoddemus added a commit to nicoddemus/pytest that referenced this issue Jan 15, 2020
@nicoddemus
Add deploy step: publish package and release notes
583c382 
Fix pytest-dev#6369
nicoddemus added a commit to nicoddemus/pytest that referenced this issue Jan 15, 2020
@nicoddemus
Add deploy step: publish package and release notes
9b2c9e9 
Fix pytest-dev#6369
@nicoddemus nicoddemus mentioned this issue Jan 15, 2020
Merged
nicoddemus added a commit to nicoddemus/pytest that referenced this issue Jan 15, 2020
@nicoddemus
Add deploy step: publish package and release notes
1d3f27c 
Fix pytest-dev#6369
@nicoddemus nicoddemus reopened this Jan 15, 2020
@nicoddemus nicoddemus mentioned this issue Jan 15, 2020
Closed
@The-Compiler The-Compiler mentioned this issue Jul 30, 2020
Open
@webknjaz
Copy link
Member

FTR it should be possible to request the missing interpreters from GH for GHA by opening an issue in their setup-python repo

@The-Compiler
Copy link
Member

I guess the other question is how far away we are from dropping 3.5.0/.1 (see e.g. #5751) or just 3.5 entirely (upstream support ends this September). Perhaps we should start showing deprecation warnings for Python 3.5 with pytest 5.1 or so? I think I'd rather just keep Travis around until we dropped it instead of investing time (both ours and Github's) in something which we'll remove a few months down the line.

@nicoddemus nicoddemus reopened this Aug 1, 2020
@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member Author

Perhaps we should start showing deprecation warnings for Python 3.5 with pytest 5.1 or so?

(I guess you mean pytest 6.1)

Not sure, we did this in the past with Python 2.7 support and a lot of people complained that they were sick of tools telling them all the time about Python 2.7 deprecation.

I don't think we need to explicitly tell users about the upcoming Python 3.5 support drop, due to python_requires Python 3.5 users will still get a supported version with pip install.

I'm closing this now, I think we will remove Travis files naturally as part of dropping Python 3.5 support. 👍

@webknjaz
Copy link
Member

webknjaz commented Aug 1, 2020

a lot of people complained that they were sick of tools telling them all the time about Python 2.7 deprecation.

LOL this reminds me of pyca/cryptography#5335 (comment). OTOH I think emitting a deprecation is the right thing to do.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@nicoddemus nicoddemus

Labels
type: infrastructure improvement to development/releases/CI structure
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
3 participants
@webknjaz @The-Compiler @nicoddemus