-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
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
feat: allow running commands with package create
and package update
with an entry point of package
to app.py
#243
feat: allow running commands with package create
and package update
with an entry point of package
to app.py
#243
Conversation
package create
and package update
with an entry point of packagepackage create
and package update
with an entry point of package
to app.py
@sbillinge ready for review |
@sbillinge (codecov failing, perhaps for the same reason in #242 (comment)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we will need a bat file for windows. you can look in regolith for example.
I checked both labpdfproc and regolith. Labpdfproc doesnt have bat files, while regolith does. But I have noticed that regolith has scripts attached shown below while labpdfproc dispatches to 'main' function in app.py as done in this PR. Could you check whether labpdfproc cli works on your windows machine? I currently dont have a windows machine with me since I am not in NY |
The bat file can make the windows execution easier for windows folks. For example we can make the file clickable to start the program. We can also have it activate the env and then run, so the user doesn't have to do that. Things like that. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #243 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 52.63% 52.63%
=======================================
Files 2 2
Lines 19 19
=======================================
Hits 10 10
Misses 9 9 |
@sbillinge ah codecov is passing - again, just re-ran CI.
I see. For now, I made an issue. Can I address this later? #246. I am currently travelling with my macbook so it's a bit hard for me to test. |
yes, sure. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
one quick question, but otherwise, this looks good to merge.
requirements/conda.txt
Outdated
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | |||
cookiecutter | |||
black | |||
pre-commit |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
double-check, do we want black and pre-commit here? In general, i.e., for most packages, I think these would be optional for developers and so we wouldn't include them as being needed to use the package. However, here, since this package is for dev's to release their code, it may be appropriate to have them here......
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@sbillinge I think so because our instructions include using black .
and pre-commit
as standalone cli commands, even though it's not needed to run package create
.
Otherwise, we have to do
pip/conda install scikit-pacakge black pre-commit
which isn't what we want
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I thought twice - your point is valid because our README.txt under requirement
would contarct if we include pre-commit
and black
because it says
# build.txt should list all Conda packages required for building the package in GitHub CI,
# conda.txt should list all Conda packages required (including optional) for running the package in GitHub CI
To remain consistent, then I guess we should not list black
and pre-commit
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I thought twice - your point is valid because our README.txt under
requirement
would contarct if we includepre-commit
andblack
because it says# build.txt should list all Conda packages required for building the package in GitHub CI, # conda.txt should list all Conda packages required (including optional) for running the package in GitHub CI
To remain consistent, then I guess we should not list
black
andpre-commit
.
yes, this feels right to me. We always expect to install a few extra tools for our dev work.
…cookiecutter into entry-pt-create-update
…into entry-pt-create-update
…cookiecutter into entry-pt-create-update
@sbillinge replied to your comment and removed |
Closes #236
Tested: