build: minor ci cleanup #1147
build: minor ci cleanup #1147
Conversation
ci/spec.yml
Outdated
|
|
||
| # Check for changes to CI spec | ||
| - name: Check for chenges to CI spec | ||
| - name: Check for changes to CI spec |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is already a part of #1148.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yup, I'll just rebase whichever one looses the race.
ci/spec.yml
Outdated
|
|
||
| # Build docs/sources | ||
| - name: Build docs | ||
| run: ./scripts/build_ensure_no_changes.sh ./scripts/build_docs.sh | ||
| - name: Build sources | ||
| run: ./scripts/build_ensure_no_changes.sh ./scripts/build_sources.sh | ||
| run: | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Doesn't the virtual env already get activated earlier?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Apparently not?
Or at least when I hacked up build_sources.sh to pip show setuptools, it was the 47 build, not the 57 one installed in the venv.
I'm not sure why the venv isn't activated, but it seems that something is missing...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm that's really weird. I wouldn't think it would work at all when running CI if the venv wasn't active. So if you run CI without (re?)activating the venv you see a different version of setuptools than if you don't?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yup.
Although now that I look closer, the shebang for manage.py is python3 and setup.py is python, so it might be that the venv only overwrites the former and the latter pull in system python2. Let me try changing that and see if that solves this...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nope, that wasn't it.
Given that it doesn't seem like venvs are used at all in the official github example, I'm wondering if it's even worth having one here...
ref https://docs.github.com/en/actions/guides/building-and-testing-python
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea, if the build section works without a venv, I don't see anything on casual inspection that would necessitate it.
| set -e | ||
| pip install pyyaml | ||
| ./scripts/build_ensure_no_changes.sh ./ci/regen-workflow.py | ||
| run: ./scripts/build_ensure_no_changes.sh ./ci/regen-workflow.py |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is already a part of #1143.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yup, I figured I'd just rebase whichever one goes in second as otherwise I'd have to muck around w/ downgrading my local setuptools to work around this.
Ion.egg-info/PKG-INFO
Outdated
| Platform: UNKNOWN | ||
| Classifier: Development Status :: 5 - Production/Stable | ||
| Classifier: License :: OSI Approved :: GNU General Public License v2 or later (GPLv2+) | ||
| Classifier: Operating System :: POSIX :: Linux | ||
| Classifier: Programming Language :: Python :: 3.6 | ||
| Classifier: Programming Language :: Python :: 3.7 | ||
| Classifier: Framework :: Django :: 1.11 | ||
| License-File: COPYING |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any particular reason for moving this Description block? Just curious; I'm not super familiar with the convention here, but this part LGTM.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's apparently that way the 2.1 metadata format works, which setuptools 57+ picks by default.
pefoley2
force-pushed
the
egg
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e08537e to
61de80b
Compare
|
Rebased onto #1153, ptal. |
No description provided.