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

Use one job for each tox env on AppVeyor #2056

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 13, 2016

Conversation

nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

Some time ago when we first added support for testing pytest on AppVeyor,
jobs in a build would not start immediately one after the other, as if AppVeyor
would schedule jobs from other builds (projects) in its VMs. So it made sense
at the time to reduce the number of jobs.

I have noticed in other projects that this behavior has changed, and jobs
in a build now start one after the other. Having a separate list then improves
visibility when the build fails, because we can see at a glance the failing(s)
tox environment(s).

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 92.79% when pulling 09ee10a on nicoddemus:appveyor-list into 71b6833 on pytest-dev:master.

Some time ago when we first added support for testing pytest on AppVeyor,
jobs in a build would not start immediately one after the other, as if AppVeyor
would schedule jobs from other builds (projects) in its VMs. So it made sense
at the time to reduce the number of jobs.

I have noticed in other projects that this behavior has changed, and jobs
in a build now start one after the other. Having a separate list then improves
visibility when the build fails, because we can see at a glance the failing(s)
tox environment(s).
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 92.79% when pulling f99957c on nicoddemus:appveyor-list into 5185f2a on pytest-dev:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 92.79% when pulling f99957c on nicoddemus:appveyor-list into 5185f2a on pytest-dev:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Nov 12, 2016

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 92.79% when pulling f99957c on nicoddemus:appveyor-list into 5185f2a on pytest-dev:master.

@RonnyPfannschmidt
Copy link
Member

plese add a match for the script to manifest.in

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 92.79% when pulling ec69514 on nicoddemus:appveyor-list into 5185f2a on pytest-dev:master.

@nicoddemus nicoddemus merged commit f0e0250 into pytest-dev:master Nov 13, 2016
@nicoddemus nicoddemus deleted the appveyor-list branch November 13, 2016 00:15
@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member Author

plese add a match for the script to manifest.in

Yep, my bad. Apparently check-manifest is already showing its value. 😁

nicoddemus added a commit to nicoddemus/pytest that referenced this pull request Nov 24, 2016
Just noticed that the "coveralls" env was being execute after each env.

This was introduced by mistake in pytest-dev#2056
nicoddemus added a commit to nicoddemus/pytest that referenced this pull request Nov 24, 2016
Just noticed that the "coveralls" env was being execute after each env.

This was introduced by mistake in pytest-dev#2056
nicoddemus added a commit to nicoddemus/pytest that referenced this pull request Nov 24, 2016
Just noticed that the "coveralls" env was being execute after each env.

This was introduced by mistake in pytest-dev#2056
nicoddemus added a commit to nicoddemus/pytest that referenced this pull request Nov 24, 2016
Just noticed that the "coveralls" env was being execute after each env.

This was introduced by mistake in pytest-dev#2056
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