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

Feature/forward version to 6.0.0-alpha #1285

Merged

Conversation

white-gecko
Copy link
Member

@white-gecko white-gecko commented Mar 22, 2021

Replace #1284

Proposed Changes

  • Update the version string to allow installations from the git repo and let pip know, it is newer than the pypi release
  • Will allow install with pip install git+https://github.com/rdflib/rdflib@master over a pypi installation

@white-gecko
Copy link
Member Author

Does not do the trick. I don't know, where drone is cloning from.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 75.523% when pulling 3327193 on white-gecko:feature/forwardVersionTo6alpha into 65263ec on RDFLib:master.

5 similar comments
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 75.523% when pulling 3327193 on white-gecko:feature/forwardVersionTo6alpha into 65263ec on RDFLib:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 75.523% when pulling 3327193 on white-gecko:feature/forwardVersionTo6alpha into 65263ec on RDFLib:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 75.523% when pulling 3327193 on white-gecko:feature/forwardVersionTo6alpha into 65263ec on RDFLib:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 75.523% when pulling 3327193 on white-gecko:feature/forwardVersionTo6alpha into 65263ec on RDFLib:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 75.523% when pulling 3327193 on white-gecko:feature/forwardVersionTo6alpha into 65263ec on RDFLib:master.

@white-gecko
Copy link
Member Author

@ashleysommer do you have any idea, where this behavior is coming from?

@ashleysommer
Copy link
Contributor

ashleysommer commented Mar 23, 2021

Looks like Drone is trying to clone branch: feature/forwardVersion
But your branch is white-gecko:feature/forwardVersionTo6alpha
Did you rename your branch or something like that?

@ashleysommer
Copy link
Contributor

Oh. No I'm wrong, this is weird.
Here is the test for this PR: https://drone.rdflib.ashs.dev/RDFLib/rdflib/66
It is cloning branch: feature/forwardVersionTo6alpha and it succeeded, and passed all tests.
But this github PR thread is still pointing to https://drone.rdflib.ashs.dev/RDFLib/rdflib/65 which is from the previous PR.

@ashleysommer
Copy link
Contributor

ashleysommer commented Mar 23, 2021

Ok, I got an answer from one of the Drone maintainers.
Even though they're different branches, the HEAD commit SHA in the branch feature/forwardVersionTo6alpha is the same as the HEAD commit SHA in old branch feature/forwardVersion. So when github queries the CI status from Drone, it asks for the build for this commit SHA, but drone gives the status for the previous build, because it was the same commit SHA.

Note, that is why it appears that Drone doesn't restart its test when the PR is closed/re-opened, when actually it does. But the github status indicator will still point to the first build with that SHA.

@white-gecko
Copy link
Member Author

:-) ok this is cool in a way, that there is some optimization towards the commit ID. I think this is good to know for possible future cases. Should I create a new commit with a new commit ID or do we want to merge it as it is?

Copy link
Contributor

@ashleysommer ashleysommer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We'll commit as-is. I can already see it passes tests. thanks.

@ashleysommer ashleysommer merged commit d717cef into RDFLib:master Mar 23, 2021
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.

3 participants