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

Separate code quality step and only run on 3.10 #925

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 19, 2023

Conversation

jklaise
Copy link
Contributor

@jklaise jklaise commented May 19, 2023

It makes sense to run lints and type-checking only on the latest supported version (currently 3.10) as this will unblock improvement in tooling (e.g. see #874).

@jklaise
Copy link
Contributor Author

jklaise commented May 19, 2023

Ironically using code-quality as a pre-requisite for the test jobs takes overall longer just because of the length of time needed to install our dependencies. Perhaps better to remove the pre-requisite so that jobs can start asap (they would be cancelled if code-quality fails? @ascillitoe

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 19, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #925 (9c7fbf0) into master (d37c724) will decrease coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #925      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   85.28%   85.21%   -0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          74       74              
  Lines        8832     8792      -40     
==========================================
- Hits         7532     7492      -40     
  Misses       1300     1300              

see 7 files with indirect coverage changes

@ascillitoe
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry late to this. I agree that it makes sense to separate, and also OK to remove the pre-requisite since as you say, the test jobs will be cancelled anyway if code-quality fails.

@jklaise
Copy link
Contributor Author

jklaise commented May 22, 2023

@ascillitoe I was actually wrong, the test jobs wouldn't be cancelled (perhaps there is a setting). Currently they only get cancelled if one of the tests in the build fails.

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.

2 participants