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

Test auto-deployment #596

Closed
tsalo opened this issue Aug 21, 2020 · 15 comments
Closed

Test auto-deployment #596

tsalo opened this issue Aug 21, 2020 · 15 comments
Labels
enhancement issues describing possible enhancements to the project
Milestone

Comments

@tsalo
Copy link
Member

tsalo commented Aug 21, 2020

Summary

The open question regarding the changes in #568 is whether the person making the release on GitHub has to be the same person whose PyPi credentials are stored in CircleCI (namely, me).

Additional Detail

None.

Next Steps

  1. Next time we make a release, someone else should actually make the release. This cannot be release drafter though. I know that release drafter-generated releases do not work, so we need to copy the contents of our release drafter-generated draft into a new release draft before making the release.
  2. Check that the release is deployed to PyPi.
  3. If it fails:
    • Delete the tag and the release on GitHub.
    • I will make the release or we can change the environment variables to someone else's credentials so that someone else can be the releaser.
  4. If it succeeds:
    • Celebrate.
@tsalo tsalo added this to the 0.0.9 milestone Oct 16, 2020
@emdupre emdupre added the enhancement issues describing possible enhancements to the project label Jan 11, 2021
@tsalo
Copy link
Member Author

tsalo commented Jan 28, 2021

Now that #635 has been merged, I think we're ready to make the next release, but I'd love to hold off until #663 is merged if that's cool. @emdupre will you do the first release test? Would Friday work?

@emdupre
Copy link
Member

emdupre commented Jan 28, 2021

It wouldn't bother me at all to cut it, but did we want to solicit user feedback first ?

@tsalo
Copy link
Member Author

tsalo commented Jan 28, 2021

I just didn't think we were going to get any.

@emdupre
Copy link
Member

emdupre commented Jan 28, 2021

It's a fair concern 😅 I just seem to remember in the last dev call we talked about reaching out specifically on the thresholding issue ?

@jbteves
Copy link
Collaborator

jbteves commented Jan 28, 2021

@tsalo I think #663 is ready to merge, you have all tests passing and several approvals. Let's merge it and release.

@jbteves
Copy link
Collaborator

jbteves commented Jan 28, 2021

@emdupre per the minutes, we agreed to wait for a week of feedback on #635. So we could go ahead and merge #663 and then release next Friday?

@emdupre
Copy link
Member

emdupre commented Jan 28, 2021

Sorry @jbteves, I think I'm a little confused by what you're proposing ? I'm fine to wait until next Friday. We should probably directly follow-up on #/617 to ask for user feedback, if we want the chance of having any !!

@jbteves
Copy link
Collaborator

jbteves commented Jan 28, 2021

Sorry, that's my fault for responding to one comment at a time. I originally thought, "Yeah, release! Let's go for it!" but then I saw that you were right about us agreeing to wait a week, and we haven't specifically sought out feedback, so I figured we should do that today and then wait until next Friday to actually cut it as a consequence.
Relevant excerpts from notes:

Plan is get 635 in, give a week for feedback, then cut a release before next dev call.

Merging 635 is the last thing to consider before cutting a release (if they’re prompt, maybe also wait for Chuck & Mateo to test it on their data)

@tsalo
Copy link
Member Author

tsalo commented Feb 5, 2021

Continuing from #617 (comment)

@jbteves, I believe that @emdupre is going to attempt to make the release. At minimum, the first person to try has to be someone other than me, since it's my credentials that we'll be using. If it fails, then I'll do the release and we can revisit how we want to handle the credentials.

EDIT: And we can/should also consider using the "Publish Python Package" GitHub Action instead of CircleCI-based deployment at some point. They may be basically the same thing, but still worth considering.

@jbteves
Copy link
Collaborator

jbteves commented Feb 5, 2021

Alright, that makes sense. Would it be possible for me to tag along via Zoom to see how it's done?

we can/should also consider using the "Publish Python Package" GitHub Action

Do you mind opening an issue to discuss, @tsalo ?

@tsalo
Copy link
Member Author

tsalo commented Feb 5, 2021

Do you mind opening an issue to discuss, @tsalo ?

Can do, but I'll wait until after we successfully make this release. If it fails, then the GitHub Action probably won't work either.

EDIT: Regarding Zoom, I can't speak for Elizabeth, but if it doesn't work for her we could try it. Although, at that point it will be clear that knowing how to make the release this way won't work for you either...

@emdupre
Copy link
Member

emdupre commented Feb 5, 2021

EDIT: Regarding Zoom, I can't speak for Elizabeth, but if it doesn't work for her we could try it. Although, at that point it will be clear that knowing how to make the release this way won't work for you either...

I'm on a coding sprint right now, but after 2p-ish I should be free. I hope it will be as simple as a button click but I can set up a quick jitsi to debrief after as you prefer @jbteves

@jbteves
Copy link
Collaborator

jbteves commented Feb 5, 2021

Although, at that point it will be clear that knowing how to make the release this way won't work for you either...
Good point.

Let's only jitsi if it doesn't work with the button press, I'm free this afternoon so it's at your convenience.

@emdupre
Copy link
Member

emdupre commented Feb 5, 2021

On here to debug : https://meet.jit.si/tedana-009-release

@tsalo
Copy link
Member Author

tsalo commented Feb 5, 2021

We jumped ship on the CircleCI-based approach, and moved to GitHub Actions. It worked (after like 4 tries)!

@tsalo tsalo closed this as completed Feb 5, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement issues describing possible enhancements to the project
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants