CI(gh-2126): transition to uv for dependency management and testing#2129
Conversation
Co-authored-by: nstarman <nstarman@users.noreply.github.com>
This reverts commit c3ce49f.
|
Progress blocked by: pyro-ppl/pyro-api#25 |
|
It's not clear to me how to fix issues with pyro-api. Maybe just simply comment out the installation in CI and point to your PR? we don't test it here I guess. |
- Add --cov-report=lcov to pytest commands for Coveralls compatibility. - Use --cov-append to aggregate coverage results across multiple test runs within jobs. - Explicitly point the Coveralls action to the generated LCOV files. - Synchronize the finish job condition with parallel test jobs.
|
@fehiepsi @juanitorduz, this PR is ready for review and merge. |
|
to: @fehiepsi The While it requires persistent updates to prevent it from becoming stale, we could automate this via a GitHub bot. My idea is to have it run What are your thoughts on this, and does that update frequency sound reasonable to you? |
|
I have verified the new readthedoc config is working. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall, I like the change as it makes the code much more maintainable :)
Why did you also change the code-cov logic that was set up? (Are the failures on the CI a reason for that?)
I am trying to fix the JAX release issue in #2155 so that we can remove the bounds.
|
I suggest we try merging #2155 first to that this change is "smaller" :) |
juanitorduz
left a comment
juanitorduz
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM!
As this is an important change I suggest we wait for @fehiepsi 's review :)
fehiepsi
left a comment
fehiepsi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM - I like that this only affects CI. Hope that this new tool does not introduce extra maintenance burden.
I think the opposite |
|
@fehiepsi @juanitorduz what about this? |
I have experience with lock files for private projects, but I have never tried it for open source projects 😅 |
|
I'm not familiar with uv so I can't say. We can try it as long as it doesn't affect current user's workflow. |
It will not affect users; it is for CI. |
|
It seems to help us address regression once per month instead of per pull request? |
This would be great! We might wanna try it out. Everytime jax or nnx make a release things break 😅 |
|
mmmm but also the fixes are quick and not a burden ... we can catch them faster 🏃 |
Yes, we can do that, but what if there are three or four active PRs? Then we are likely to get merge conflicts. |
3 participants
No description provided.