-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27
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 GitHub Actions instead of Travis #142
Conversation
Never used them but looks great. |
Added upload to Codecov (it can take the XML report from pytest-cov, unlike Coveralls). Added a MacOS job for Python 3.7. Being specific about OS versions would be my first idea, but here I'm not so sure, it creates maintenance work. On the other hand if we are saying we are supporting specific OS versions then that would be useful. |
You can matrix on the OS versions as well as Python and have -latest and specific versions so you get to see if anything broke in the newest of the OS and set up support guarantees for the rest |
I'm all for it |
Rebased on master to fix clashes and changed to specific OS's with the objective of trying everything at least once (will Ubuntu 20.04 work???). |
Great! Can you enable Actions for the repository under Settings/Actions? |
Thanks for checking. I have now pushed this PR as a branch to the repository and the actions started running. Also realised another commit was needed to stop trying to upload to Codecov from the Pylint job. |
Thanks! Looks great |
should .travis.yml file be removed? sorry for late reply, but I've just realized that in the fork I'm using, travis is still enabled but it fails because it tries to run tests for python 3.5 which support has been dropped recently. |
Seeing we can re-create the config if we want to try fixing and re-enabling Travis at some later date, I see no harm in removing the file |
With all the problems with Travis here is an attempt to use GitHub actions instead. Let's see if the PR works. One advantage - it is easier to re-run when there is a segfault...
It does clash with #141. So, would need to be updated.