Merged
Conversation
Also use python -m build to build sdist tarball as well and add addition sanity checks to the scripts.
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## trunk #2054 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 83.40% 83.40%
=======================================
Files 353 353
Lines 81684 81684
Branches 8631 8631
=======================================
Hits 68124 68124
Misses 10738 10738
Partials 2822 2822 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Kami
force-pushed
the
chore/more_install_checks
branch
from
15132ef to
3df72b7
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
This is an attempt to improve existing build + dist + install checks in an attempt to automatically catch issues such as the one reported in #2047.
Keep in mind though that it's not yet fully clear to me why the existing checks didn't catch that issue (possibly something related to the execution environment there).