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

attempt to use copier template #197

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Oct 24, 2023
Merged

attempt to use copier template #197

merged 6 commits into from
Oct 24, 2023

Conversation

eacharles
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 23, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (6c4c3f8) 100.00% compared to head (65c538c) 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #197   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           34        33    -1     
  Lines         2284      2279    -5     
=========================================
- Hits          2284      2279    -5     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests ?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@eacharles
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hi Drew, Melissa, I pulled this to use the RAIL packages template. I had to make a few minor changes to get that to work, mainly adding a line to install MPI and changing where it looks for the code (qp instead of rail), but I see a lot of value in using the same github actions as all the RAIL packages. Thoughts?

@drewoldag
Copy link
Collaborator

Yep, totally on board with using a relatively consistent set of CI actions. Looking over the PR now.

# Changes here will be overwritten by Copier
_commit: v0.2
_src_path: gh:LSSTDESC/RAIL-project-template
author_email: [email protected]
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Where does that actually end up?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm pretty sure that the author_email is only used to populate the corresponding field in the pyproject.toml file.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I left a comment in the pyproject.toml file pointing out where it's used. And if you want to up update it, it should be safe to do so without running copier update again as long as you change it in both .copier-answers.yml and pyproject.toml.

.prepare_project.sh Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Collaborator

@drewoldag drewoldag left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall, this is looking fine to me. I left a couple of comments, but nothing standing out that should block the work.

license = {file = "LICENSE"}
readme = "README.md"

authors = [
{ name = "LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration (DESC)", email = "[email protected]" }
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is where [email protected] ended up. It's not considered best practice, but since author_email is only used in one location, you can update it here and in the .copier-answeres.yml file and avoid having to run copier update again.

@eacharles
Copy link
Collaborator Author

eacharles commented Oct 24, 2023 via email

@eacharles eacharles merged commit 4c746c0 into main Oct 24, 2023
8 checks passed
@eacharles eacharles deleted the issue/196/copier branch May 28, 2024 16:54
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.

2 participants