Skip to content

Move CI to Github Actions #601

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

Closed

Conversation

browniebroke
Copy link

@browniebroke browniebroke commented Mar 15, 2022

The CI is still configured to use TravisCI, although it hasn't built in the past 9 months. Since Travis stopped offering generous free plan for open source, most projects have moved to GitHub actions, which seems to be the default these days.

This migrates the existing Travis config to GitHub actions.

The build status isn't reported due to security reasons from GitHub: a workflow added from a fork isn't running. You can see the build result on my fork: https://github.com/browniebroke/python-future/actions/workflows/ci.yml?query=branch%3Aci%2Fgh-actions Actually it seems to be triggering now 👀

Comment on lines +3 to +5
on:
pull_request:
push:
Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You probably want to restrict branches before merging this:

Suggested change
on:
pull_request:
push:
on:
pull_request:
branches:
- master
push:
branches:
- master

Comment on lines +7 to +9
concurrency:
group: ${{ github.head_ref || github.run_id }}
cancel-in-progress: true
Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This make sure that successive pushes to a PR cancel prior CI runs

@browniebroke
Copy link
Author

browniebroke commented Mar 15, 2022

FWIW, I tried to explore what's possible if you want to run tests outside of docker on another branch:
https://github.com/browniebroke/python-future/blob/ci/build-matrix/.github/workflows/ci.yml

This last point means that we should keep things in Docker (unless dropping support for 2.6 is an option, but that probably defies the point of this library)

@browniebroke
Copy link
Author

Closing as superseded by #603

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.

1 participant