Open abelsiqueira opened 4 months ago
The recommended way to install Aqua (from their website) is to add a test section in the normal tests. The alternative, found in JuMP, is to run the Aqua tests separately online. It is not clear yet what is better.
I was thinking of adding it as part of the Lint workflow, but it requires installing the package and it only makes sense to run when the Julia-related files are modified. So it makes sense to run them in the Test workflow instead, and thus it could be justified that it runs as part of the tests locally as well.
On there other hands, it feels like these are separate tests, and that a workflow that runs parallel to the tests is better. You would see the failures (much) faster after a push. But testing locally would not be a part of it.
@odow sorry for cold tagging you. Did you have strong opinions either way when adding the workflow to JuMP?
I chose a separate workflow because some JuMP tests can add new methods for extensions etc, and this confuses the ambiguity checker.
A separate workflow means this is never an issue, although equally: running it in your tests is fine, you just might get some false positives.
Thanks for the reply, @odow. I'll leave this open to think about it a bit more.
Example: https://github.com/jump-dev/JuMP.jl/blob/master/.github/workflows/aqua.yml