ci: use checkout with fetch-depth 0

[afuetterer]

See: https://github.com/PyPSA/PyPSA/pull/954

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 86.12%. Comparing base (2883ef9) to head (93e268e). Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #313 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 86.12% 86.12% ======================================= Files 17 17 Lines 4165 4165 Branches 981 981 ======================================= Hits 3587 3587 Misses 424 424 Partials 154 154 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[afuetterer]

Two questions.

Regarding gh-release workflow:

• In my opinion this line is redundant, because the workflow only runs, when a tag is pushed: https://github.com/PyPSA/linopy/blob/20a6dcdcd8dc4221c8f417e219075da0524385f7/.github/workflows/gh-release.yml#L19
• Can we remove it?

Regarding deploy workflow:

• The workflow runs on push, so every commit builds the package, but only on a tag it is deployed.
• Is this intended? Or should deploy run on tag only? https://github.com/PyPSA/linopy/blob/20a6dcdcd8dc4221c8f417e219075da0524385f7/.github/workflows/deploy.yml#L37
• maybe you could use build-and-inspect-python-package in the ci workflow? It tests if the package is "buildable" and runs a few checks on the files, metadata etc.

[FabianHofmann]

thanks for the PR and raising the issue @afuetterer, I think @lkstrp knows :)

[afuetterer]

Example of "baipp" workflow: https://github.com/hynek/structlog/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml

Example output: https://github.com/hynek/build-and-inspect-python-package/actions/runs/9817023209

[lkstrp]

In my opinion this line is redundant, because the workflow only runs, when a tag is pushed:

Yes, it's redundant.

Is this intended? Or should deploy run on tag only?

And this is not intended either. We can also combine both workflows, as done in PyPSA.

And using build-and-inspect-python-package is also good I think. We could also then go further from there. E.g. uploading all commits to test-pypi (as done here) or the version matrix based on package metadata. But this is not urgent.

[afuetterer]

What does that mean for this PR?

[lkstrp]

You can apply everything proposed in here.

[FabianHofmann]

@afuetterer ready to merge?

[afuetterer]

@afuetterer ready to merge?

Yes. Will open another PR soon.

[FabianHofmann]

great thanks @afuetterer