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

ci: Add examples testing & Move Ruff and Black to pre-commit #82

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 11, 2024

Conversation

rht
Copy link
Contributor

@rht rht commented Jan 11, 2024

No description provided.

@rht rht force-pushed the ruff branch 2 times, most recently from 1c1cbab to 76fb788 Compare January 11, 2024 07:32
@Corvince
Copy link
Contributor

Looks much cleaner now!

But somehow the action added in this PR isn't run. I have no idea why. There is also a TODO added, do you want to address this in this PR or is it ready for review? (pre-commit is failing)

@rht rht force-pushed the ruff branch 3 times, most recently from f645f0e to 85edca2 Compare January 11, 2024 08:48
@rht
Copy link
Contributor Author

rht commented Jan 11, 2024

I have made sure the GH Actions is running now. However, the errors that have shown up seem to be real bugs in the current 2.2.0 release.

@rht
Copy link
Contributor Author

rht commented Jan 11, 2024

There is also a TODO added, do you want to address this in this PR or is it ready for review? (pre-commit is failing)

I will defer the TODO (linting the .ipynb) to later.

@Corvince
Copy link
Contributor

I have made sure the GH Actions is running now. However, the errors that have shown up seem to be real bugs in the current 2.2.0 release.

So the PR already proofed itself useful! It seems like 1 error might be a true bug and the other 2 (which are the same) are involuntarily added breaking changes. But I think we can merge this, because fixing those is outside the scope of this PR. Do you agree?

@rht
Copy link
Contributor Author

rht commented Jan 11, 2024

I agree with merging this PR now, so as to show reminder of the bugs, until they are fixed.

@rht
Copy link
Contributor Author

rht commented Jan 11, 2024

It probably makes more sense if the tests in the GH Actions in this PR are run in projectmesa/mesa instead of here? The CI tests in this repo are only run when the examples are modified.

@Corvince
Copy link
Contributor

It makes sense in both places. Here if new/modified examples fail and in mesa if it breaks the examples. Would have catched the current bugs early

@rht rht merged commit d97bbea into projectmesa:main Jan 11, 2024
1 of 2 checks passed
@rht rht deleted the ruff branch January 11, 2024 12:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants