search

adafruit / cookiecutter-adafruit-circuitpython

Cookiecutter template for Adafruit's CircuitPython libraries.
MIT License
22 stars 37 forks source link

Update build.yml for projects with example subdirs #60

Closed evaherrada closed 4 years ago

evaherrada commented 4 years ago

build.yml is still WIP, line 44 is what we're working on

tannewt commented 4 years ago

Are these meant to be in the cookiecutter output? I already added them here: https://github.com/adafruit/cookiecutter-adafruit-circuitpython/blob/master/%7B%7B%20cookiecutter.library_name%20%7D%7D/.github/workflows/build.yml

siddacious commented 4 years ago

@tannewt yes, these are suppose to be in the cookiecutter output as an update to fix some issues with locating files to lint. I see they're not in the correct directory though; I'll make a review note

evaherrada commented 4 years ago

@tannewt @siddacious Thanks for catching that. Moving them now

siddacious commented 4 years ago

@sommersoft @dherrada I'm starting to agree with Sommersoft's point that we don't want to encourage non adafruit_foo.py libs by allowing them with the standard cookiecutter. I think maybe the best course of action is to fix the examples globbing and then accept that neopixel.py, simpleio.py, and neopixel_spi.py should have non-standard workflow files. They're aberrant and we shouldn't gloss over that fact.

evaherrada commented 4 years ago

@siddacious Would you like me to make and push those changes?

siddacious commented 4 years ago

@dherrada lets wait for others to chime in.

makermelissa commented 4 years ago

Isn't the cookiecutter only used for new repos? It makes sense to only allow adafruit_whatever.py on new repos since the cookiecutter shouldn't affect the non-standard repos.

evaherrada commented 4 years ago

@makermelissa As I understand it, this PR is for reviewing changes I'm making to build.yml that will be in (almost) every circuitpython library

siddacious commented 4 years ago

@makermelissa Yes, that's another way of looking at it, however as Dylan said we're trying to keep the build files consistent (except for the three weirdos) so this change will be pushed out to almost every lib when it's approved

makermelissa commented 4 years ago

Ok, either way it seems easier just to treat the odd few repos as special cases, so I am in agreement with @siddacious and @sommersoft.

evaherrada commented 4 years ago

Ok, so it seems like since @siddacious @makermelissa and @sommersoft all think that we shouldn't change the build.py to accommodate for the improperly named modules, it would make sense to move forward that way. As long as no one has any objections, I can start on that tomorrow.

siddacious commented 4 years ago

@dherrada yes, please start on that first thing