-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
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
Bare flask + container skeleton #4
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Overall this looks good. We will likely use scaffold at some point, but this gets us up and running.
@@ -2,15 +2,20 @@ | |||
# This file will be regenerated if you run travis_pypi_setup.py |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if we should remove this and instead use github actions similar to https://github.com/release-depot/flask-container-scaffold/blob/main/.github/workflows/test.yml
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agree, travis has not been great recently, and I think actions are now the preferred method
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with the idea as well. I tried to update this PR with a first attempt at a github action, though I wouldn't be surprised if it takes a couple iterations to get it working!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think what you have looks fine, we can always do a rev to fix CI if needed. Are you wanting to leave travis file in until we see if the new actions work correctly? If so, we could easily test the action with the next patch removing travis (the other alternative would be to temporarily not limit push action tests to be on main (well, I guess this is still using 'master'), and once you see the action work on your own branch, you will know you can limit it to just main for the patch).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds reasonable to me! And yes, the repo was created a couple of years ago so it still uses master.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ok - maybe as a next step before adding more working code, we should move this to the newer 'main' standard? We need to start shifting everything anyway. I am approving this, looks good!
ACK, aside from the minor point @fuzzball81 made about using actions instead of travis now. It should be pretty straight forward to port over what I have in the referenced project, but if there is a complication, I can help. |
Update the structure to match that of the other services.
2bcbd2e
to
3a6437c
Compare
Looks like we need to set this up with mergify as well, in addition to checking the GH action works + updating the branch name. Opened #5 to keep track of it. |
Right you are, manually merging now! |
Update the structure to match that of the other services.