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

Actually distribute ppb.debug #677

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 10, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions setup.cfg
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ packages =
ppb
ppb.systems
ppb.features
ppb.debug
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there a reason we shouldn't use setuptools' autodiscovery, with packages = find:, to prevent similar issues in the future?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not to my knowledge.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pretty much only if we were doing the "tests directory in the package" thing, but we're not so this is probably an okay solution.

Can we set up a test run as part of the release process that installs the package from outside the source (I'm okay with "from cirrus's artifacts") and run tests against the installed version?

Between the automating the package list and running tests against the wheel I think we prevent any more bad from happening.


setup_requires =
pytest-runner
Expand Down