search

aiidalab / aiidalab-widgets-base

Reusable widgets for AiiDAlab applications
MIT License
7 stars 17 forks source link

Restructure to build image and run integration test on it #527

Closed unkcpz closed 11 months ago

codecov[bot] commented 11 months ago

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Comparison is base (ebc7120) 79.92% compared to head (eed1e47) 79.92%.

Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #527 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 79.92% 79.92% ======================================= Files 27 27 Lines 3815 3815 ======================================= Hits 3049 3049 Misses 766 766 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/aiidalab/aiidalab-widgets-base/pull/527/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=aiidalab) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [python-3.10](https://app.codecov.io/gh/aiidalab/aiidalab-widgets-base/pull/527/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=aiidalab) | `79.92% <ø> (ø)` | | | [python-3.8](https://app.codecov.io/gh/aiidalab/aiidalab-widgets-base/pull/527/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=aiidalab) | `79.95% <ø> (ø)` | | | [python-3.9](https://app.codecov.io/gh/aiidalab/aiidalab-widgets-base/pull/527/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=aiidalab) | `79.95% <ø> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=aiidalab#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

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

danielhollas commented 11 months ago

Hmm, I have to say I am not sure I am a fan of this change. It seems to add a lot of extra complexity, not to mention increased CI time due to extra Docker build. Could you please explain what are the benefits here?

I liked the previous approach because we were simply using the actual image, so the tests were close to how the app would actually be installed.

unkcpz commented 11 months ago

I have to admit this seems not that useful as I thought after I did the change. For the qeapp, the benefits are straightforward because the image is the final goal and using it to do the integration test comes as a positive side effect. Here, in order to run the integration test, the image has to be built first, which is not that bad although increasing the complexity and has small benefits that the installation of the package happened in the build phase which from my perspective easy to control than installed by conftest.

I would avoid to go this way.

unkcpz commented 11 months ago

I close this, because it is not a good idea to use such a complex way to build and test notebook.