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

[ON-HOLD] Staging of v1.0.1 release #351

Closed
wants to merge 46 commits into from
Closed

[ON-HOLD] Staging of v1.0.1 release #351

wants to merge 46 commits into from

Conversation

ml-evs
Copy link
Member

@ml-evs ml-evs commented Feb 26, 2021

This PR backports recent changes from develop ready for the patch release of v1.0.1. It includes all commits to develop since v1.0.0, except the addition of the issue_tracker field in #339, plus a commit that adjusts the version number in the specification document (a corresponding commit will need to be made in develop to update the version to v1.0.1~develop or v1.1.0~develop.

This should not be merged/released until all other open PRs that match the v1.0.1 milestone have been merged: https://github.com/Materials-Consortia/OPTIMADE/milestone/5

giovannipizzi and others added 27 commits July 1, 2020 17:50
This is also adds GitHub actions
The rest for now are still on Travis and can be moved at a later stage; in any case they require a different environment (java vs. python)
because they were intended to have trailing spaces to check the
syntax :-)

Excluding these two files explicitly now from the pre-commit
Co-authored-by: Casper Welzel Andersen <43357585+CasperWA@users.noreply.github.com>
…-space

Adding pre-commit tests (for trailing whitespaces)
* Updated schemas to the latest generated by optimade-python-tools v0.12.0

Co-authored-by: Casper Welzel Andersen <casper.andersen@epfl.ch>
* Added Java tests to GH actions
* Renamed GH actions file
* Added swagger validation using curl/jq and validator.swagger.io

* Restructured CI into multiple jobs

* Bump pre-commit version as suggested previously

* Disabled Travis
Co-authored-by: Casper Welzel Andersen <43357585+CasperWA@users.noreply.github.com>
Add field for implementation issue tracker
* Added Zenodo citation

* Update README.md

* Use HTTPS and link to unversioned DOI
)

* Sorted allowed word list for cleaner diff

* Added new audit tooling for spellchecking

* Fixed spelling mistakes in specification and updated .words.lst with 'make fix_spellings'
Co-authored-by: Casper Welzel Andersen <43357585+CasperWA@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Casper Welzel Andersen <43357585+CasperWA@users.noreply.github.com>
Redefine species.mass as a list of floats
…330)

* Updated schema to optimade-python-tools v0.12.9
ml-evs and others added 2 commits March 3, 2021 15:22
* Update OpenAPI schemas for v0.13.0 of python-tools

* Bumped OPTIMADE spec version (1.0.1) and optimade-python-tools version (0.13.1)

* Use version number 1.0.1~develop

* Added regexp for prefix from v0.13.2 of python-tools

* Use 1.0.0~develop as the version tag
The related OPTIMADE Python tools PR:
Materials-Consortia/optimade-python-tools#731.
The changes are related to enumerations (Python Enum
sub-classes), extending information about them and defining
the default value for the aggregate field attribute for a links
resource.
ml-evs and others added 2 commits May 21, 2021 16:47
@ml-evs ml-evs added the priority/high There is a consensus that resolving this should be prioritized. label May 28, 2021
…ments_ratios' (#349)

* Declaring relations between 'elements', 'nelements' and 'elements_ratios'.

* Update optimade.rst

Co-authored-by: Casper Welzel Andersen <43357585+CasperWA@users.noreply.github.com>

* elements_ratios: replacing "correlated" with more intuitive formulation.

* Describing the relation between `elements` and `elements_ratios`.

* Update optimade.rst

Co-authored-by: Rickard Armiento <gitcommits@armiento.net>

* Describing the relation between `elements` and `elements_ratios`.

* Explicitly listing the requirements on both length and order.

* Update optimade.rst

Co-authored-by: Rickard Armiento <gitcommits@armiento.net>

* Rewording according to @rartino's suggestion.

* Reverting accidentally modified definition of `nelements`.

Co-authored-by: Casper Welzel Andersen <43357585+CasperWA@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Rickard Armiento <gitcommits@armiento.net>
Co-authored-by: Matthew Evans <7916000+ml-evs@users.noreply.github.com>
@CasperWA
Copy link
Member

Let's maybe push this through now to patch v1.0? It doesn't matter if v1.1 is coming up soon, patching v1.0 is still very valuable.

@ml-evs
Copy link
Member Author

ml-evs commented Jun 10, 2021

Let's maybe push this through now to patch v1.0? It doesn't matter if v1.1 is coming up soon, patching v1.0 is still very valuable.

Agreed! I just need to remake this PR with the new commits to develop.

CasperWA and others added 4 commits June 10, 2021 14:11
This removes:
- HTTPValidationError
- ValidationError

And adds proper support for response codes and their response models for
each of the API routes.

It also updates a couple of descriptions by removing end-of-the-line
white space.
Stay on `1.0.0~develop`

Co-authored-by: Matthew Evans <7916000+ml-evs@users.noreply.github.com>
Update schemas according to optimade v0.15.3

This removes:
- HTTPValidationError
- ValidationError

And adds proper support for response codes and their response models for
each of the API routes.

It also updates a couple of descriptions by removing end-of-the-line
white space.

It also updates the descriptions according to the latest changes in the
specification, specifically the changes to the structures entry resource.
@CasperWA
Copy link
Member

Rebase + ready for review :)

@ml-evs
Copy link
Member Author

ml-evs commented Jun 10, 2021

Rebase + ready for review :)

It's a bit tricky as I have to rebase and exlude the issue_tracker PR commits, so I will do this in the session later on...

@ml-evs
Copy link
Member Author

ml-evs commented Jun 10, 2021

Started preparing this PR again and had a bad thought... GitHub maps commits to PRs via their hash, and the necessary cherry-picking we have to do here breaks that connection (and hence the connection to the discussions and issues around a PR). This is fine when the PR number has been included in the commit title (as is done automatically for squashes), but is not the case for multi-commit PRs.

Do we care about this? I could add PR numbers to all of the commit messages as part of the rebase?

@CasperWA
Copy link
Member

Started preparing this PR again and had a bad thought... GitHub maps commits to PRs via their hash, and the necessary cherry-picking we have to do here breaks that connection (and hence the connection to the discussions and issues around a PR). This is fine when the PR number has been included in the commit title (as is done automatically for squashes), but is not the case for multi-commit PRs.

How much cherry-picking do we need to do? :/

Do we care about this? I could add PR numbers to all of the commit messages as part of the rebase?

Hmm... I really wouldn't. The SHAs are still unique and defining in themselves, no?
And the PRs are still there if one needs to dig through them. It should still be more efficient to search through them using GH's search functionality than referencing a commit SHA? Or?

@ml-evs
Copy link
Member Author

ml-evs commented Jun 10, 2021

Started preparing this PR again and had a bad thought... GitHub maps commits to PRs via their hash, and the necessary cherry-picking we have to do here breaks that connection (and hence the connection to the discussions and issues around a PR). This is fine when the PR number has been included in the commit title (as is done automatically for squashes), but is not the case for multi-commit PRs.

How much cherry-picking do we need to do? :/

Do we care about this? I could add PR numbers to all of the commit messages as part of the rebase?

Hmm... I really wouldn't. The SHAs are still unique and defining in themselves, no?
And the PRs are still there if one needs to dig through them. It should still be more efficient to search through them using GH's search functionality than referencing a commit SHA? Or?

I can jump back on and show you what I mean (if you see this within the next 5 mins) otherwise we can discuss tomorrow

@CasperWA
Copy link
Member

Started preparing this PR again and had a bad thought... GitHub maps commits to PRs via their hash, and the necessary cherry-picking we have to do here breaks that connection (and hence the connection to the discussions and issues around a PR). This is fine when the PR number has been included in the commit title (as is done automatically for squashes), but is not the case for multi-commit PRs.

How much cherry-picking do we need to do? :/

Do we care about this? I could add PR numbers to all of the commit messages as part of the rebase?

Hmm... I really wouldn't. The SHAs are still unique and defining in themselves, no?
And the PRs are still there if one needs to dig through them. It should still be more efficient to search through them using GH's search functionality than referencing a commit SHA? Or?

I can jump back on and show you what I mean (if you see this within the next 5 mins) otherwise we can discuss tomorrow

Let's discuss tomorrow

@ml-evs
Copy link
Member Author

ml-evs commented Jun 10, 2021

Let's discuss tomorrow

😌

* Two formatting tweaks

* Tabs to spaces and check in CI

* Remove additional commas and add missing quotes in JSON samples

- Manually fix some indentation

* Turned note back into a quote

* Fix indentation for final example
@ml-evs ml-evs changed the title [DRAFT] Staging of v1.0.1 release [ON-HOLD] Staging of v1.0.1 release Jun 14, 2021
- The issue tracker requires a minor version bump,
so in order to release a patch, we must revert it
and then re-apply it in order to maintain linear
history.
@ml-evs
Copy link
Member Author

ml-evs commented Jul 6, 2021

Superseded by #365 (discussion at #366).

@ml-evs ml-evs closed this Jul 6, 2021
@ml-evs ml-evs deleted the staging_v1.0.1 branch July 6, 2021 13:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
priority/high There is a consensus that resolving this should be prioritized.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants