[core-workflow] Questions about the proposed workflows

[Donald Stufft]

> On Dec 2, 2015, at 1:58 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 at 10:50 R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com <mailto:rdmurray at bitdance.com>> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 18:34:49 +0000, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org <mailto:brett at python.org>> wrote:
> > And this bot doesn't have to do it, but we should definitely make sure we
> > have at least automated testing of all PRs on *some* OS and also a way to
> 
> Kushal did some work in this direction (for unix builds), but we haven't
> done anything with it for a while.
> 
> Donald hooked up Travis to the GitHub test instance and runs the PRs using both gcc and clang, so I know at least GitHub + Travis has us covered. Barry has said that GitLab supports runners but you have to run them yourselves. I would also be curious to know if we could get a test coverage report somehow (e.g., can coveralls.io <http://coveralls.io/> support be added and have it use https://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/src/787158b1da024fd57b9a4f05c35042b7cdbe74a1/coverage/fullcoverage/encodings.py <https://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/src/787158b1da024fd57b9a4f05c35042b7cdbe74a1/coverage/fullcoverage/encodings.py> which requires a checkout of coverage.py).

I tried to setup coverage reports via https://codecov.io but I didn’t know how to make it work with CPython. It looked like there was some support in the Makefile but that didn’t seem to work out so well. It also supports C coverage too but I’ve never used it.

> 
> 
> > verify the PR contributor signed the CLA (the testing should be easy enough
> > on either and the CLA should be doable somehow).
> 
> This should be easy enough to do via the xmlrpc interface to the tracker, or
> (better) the rest interface if/when it lands.
> 
> I guess it would simply require people to add their GitHub IDs to their issue tracker profile. We probably should also make sure the process gets as automated as possible as I think Ewa still flips some bits manually.

With a tiny little shim server, you’d be able to make a status check that shows whether or not a PR is covered by the CLA or not. It’d be similar to Travis except instead of checking out the code and running tests, it’d just check for CLA status and report back.

> 
> -Brett
> 
> 
> --David
> _______________________________________________
> core-workflow mailing list
> core-workflow at python.org <mailto:core-workflow at python.org>
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow>
> This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct <https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct>
> _______________________________________________
> core-workflow mailing list
> core-workflow at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow
> This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct


-----------------
Donald Stufft
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/attachments/20151202/c7c858ba/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/attachments/20151202/c7c858ba/attachment-0001.sig>