Increase travis ci waiting_time

[lipemorais]

What is the purpose of this Pull Request? Fix broken builds on Travis Ci

What was done to achieve this purpose? I increased travis_wait time to 30 minutes so it do not break if be 10 minutes without outuput .

How to test if it really works? I have a already green build fixed by just this change

Who can help reviewing it? @Irio @cuducos @jtemporal @anaschwendler could help with this PR.

[skip ci]

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+37.2%) to 85.476% when pulling 2d2eb51eda8c362178c414c76f29429ca73cce2c on lipemorais:increase-travis-wait-time into d53d3f365d49dc2328ff83762be1328a932a1a0d on datasciencebr:master.

[cuducos]

@jtemporal If I merge it it will try to roll out a new version to PyPi. If I ask @lipemorais to add [skip ci] to the opening post of this PR we miss the chance to see if the waiting time added was enough… now that we actually see the green lights from the CI I think @lipemorais can add the tag so we merge it, right?

[lipemorais]

[skip ci] added. :)

[lipemorais]

Since this build tell us that is take almost 20 minutes I changed it to 20 minutes instead of 30.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+37.2%) to 85.476% when pulling 66b8d7890029a5db15f411f262f2146ce6f2d209 on lipemorais:increase-travis-wait-time into d53d3f365d49dc2328ff83762be1328a932a1a0d on datasciencebr:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+37.2%) to 85.476% when pulling e2a11898c471d195129ffb62696b845d88317433 on lipemorais:increase-travis-wait-time into d53d3f365d49dc2328ff83762be1328a932a1a0d on datasciencebr:master.

[jtemporal]

The thing is: most recent builds ran without the 20 minutes tag and the builds were successful. I believe the problem was on the other end of the journey tests (gov APIs). I'm not sure we should merge this just yet.

Also, I'm looking for a way to only deploy when setup had a version bump. There must be a way to do so using the condition tag. Open to ideas on that matter.

[cuducos]

most recent builds ran without the 20 minutes tag

So can we close that without merging… or the wait command is not such a burden?

[jtemporal]

So can we close that without merging… or the wait command is not such a burden?

The build on #137 failed with a time warning. I'd like to wait on both PRs to finish building to check whether this one is necessary or can be closed.

cc @cuducos

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+28.2%) to 85.667% when pulling 736df0bfbbe64b82cf217a8f102db5de2ee67030 on lipemorais:increase-travis-wait-time into 8c049f369b74b337c373af2d2e434981facb7722 on datasciencebr:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 57.496% when pulling 303607118bdb685780cbb563da183cffa8db5666 on lipemorais:increase-travis-wait-time into 8c049f369b74b337c373af2d2e434981facb7722 on datasciencebr:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+28.2%) to 85.667% when pulling bb0e5afffacafa1a6f805821bc578a4eb5b34bad on lipemorais:increase-travis-wait-time into 63c7901db1d06284de8123fca055c178d1185ce1 on datasciencebr:master.

[jtemporal]

It passes! 🎉

Quick reminder: We need a version bump here!

[cuducos]

Quick reminder: We need a version bump here!

Do we? We have [ci skip] in the opening comment… I must admit I'm kind o' lost

[lipemorais]

@jtemporal I agree that we don't need a version bump here.

[jtemporal]

@cuducos and @lipemorais we do need because the skip CI needs to be in the commit message to work.

Also I pretty much believe we are moving towards using patch bumps for everything documentation-wise as commented on #135

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+28.2%) to 85.667% when pulling 392b1c19df7c3499cea41610b21aad2e1d7d2183 on lipemorais:increase-travis-wait-time into 63c7901db1d06284de8123fca055c178d1185ce1 on datasciencebr:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+28.2%) to 85.667% when pulling 392b1c19df7c3499cea41610b21aad2e1d7d2183 on lipemorais:increase-travis-wait-time into 63c7901db1d06284de8123fca055c178d1185ce1 on datasciencebr:master.

[lipemorais]

After 25 days we finally have a green build!