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

RF: remove travis CI setup + badge from README.md #7492

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: maint
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

yarikoptic
Copy link
Member

We are using paid travis CI, and funds for that line are about to end. Moreover @mih is also paying for appveyor. So I think it would be reasonable to remove travis. The tricky part would be to get coverage parity since travis has AFAIK more extended battery of matrix runs to excercise different deployment scenarios ATM.

TODOs

  • see what we can do to increase coverage back to some only minimal difference

We are using paid travis CI, and funds for that line are about to end.
Moreover @mih is also paying for appveyor.  So I think it would be reasonable
to remove travis. The tricky part would be to get coverage parity since travis
has AFAIK more extended battery of matrix runs to excercise different
deployment scenarios ATM.
@yarikoptic yarikoptic added the semver-tests Changes only affect tests, no impact on version label Sep 22, 2023
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 22, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: -0.28% ⚠️

Comparison is base (776f465) 91.51% compared to head (1570eb1) 91.24%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##            maint    #7492      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.51%   91.24%   -0.28%     
==========================================
  Files         325      325              
  Lines       43443    43429      -14     
  Branches     5827     5827              
==========================================
- Hits        39759    39625     -134     
- Misses       3669     3789     +120     
  Partials       15       15              

see 42 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Member

@mih mih left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I support this move.

Given the runtime of the test battery, I suspect that the goal of reaching coverage parity is something that will require a long time.

@adswa
Copy link
Member

adswa commented Oct 13, 2023

I support this, too. Do I see correctly that the coverage loss is already minimal (-0.28%)? From a cursory read, I guess we mostly loose the breadth of versions, e.g. Python 3.11 or minimal git-annex version

@yarikoptic
Copy link
Member Author

yarikoptic commented Oct 13, 2023

Loss in code % is indeed small, but as you can assess - it would loose coverage of "interesting usecases" (more logging, specific git-annex setups, etc). I would really like to combine some of those and add at least 1 or 2 matrix runs to .appveyor to mimic at least some of those so we do not completely loose testing those code paths.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
semver-tests Changes only affect tests, no impact on version
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants