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

[CI] Fix MacOS builds: pin v13 image #17

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 4, 2024
Merged

Conversation

mickmis
Copy link
Contributor

@mickmis mickmis commented Sep 20, 2024

The latest MacOS image does not seem to support correctly anymore Python versions 3.8 & 3.9.
See notably actions/runner-images#9770.

This pins the MacOS image version to v13. In addition some slight CI enhancements:

  • Clarify job names
  • Bump checkout and setup-python actions versions
  • Set to continue jobs on failures

@mickmis mickmis force-pushed the python-ci branch 4 times, most recently from 7e17053 to 3e10528 Compare September 20, 2024 11:54
@mickmis mickmis changed the title [CI] Fix MacOS builds and extend Python versions [CI] Fix MacOS builds: pin v13 image Sep 20, 2024
@mickmis mickmis marked this pull request as ready for review September 20, 2024 11:57
barroco
barroco previously approved these changes Sep 24, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@barroco barroco left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Python 3.8 will be end of life in October 2024 and 3.9 in October 2025, we should indeed keep it in the CI for the time being assuming some InterUSS products are still requiring Python 3.8 or Python 3.9.

@barroco barroco dismissed their stale review September 24, 2024 12:57

Late checking of continue-on-error usage

Copy link
Contributor

@barroco barroco left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why would we want to continue the job on failure?
According to the documentation, it looks like this would still satisfy success conditions of the workflow if some job fails which is not something I would not expect here, right?

@mickmis
Copy link
Contributor Author

mickmis commented Sep 24, 2024

Why would we want to continue the job on failure?

The objective was to allow the other jobs to run even if one of them fails. This is useful when troubleshooting issues, because we have feedback for all configurations in one go rather than having to iterate.
Now I was not aware this would allow the run to pass even with a failing job :/
I will check for an alternative.

@mickmis mickmis merged commit aab340a into interuss:main Oct 4, 2024
6 checks passed
@mickmis mickmis deleted the python-ci branch October 4, 2024 17:00
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