omsf-eco-infra / gha-runner

A simple GitHub Action for creating cloud-based self-hosted runners.
MIT License
0 stars 3 forks source link

test: Moves openmm-gpu-test into this repo #35

Closed ethanholz closed 1 week ago

ethanholz commented 1 week ago

Moves and (slightly) modifies the code from omsf-eco-infra/openmm-gpu-test into this repo. I have added the IAM role as a secret so it is easier to do testing in the future and it is already added to the repo.

ethanholz commented 1 week ago

Closes #34

codecov[bot] commented 1 week ago

Codecov Report

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

Project coverage is 94.73%. Comparing base (795fe0c) to head (6a8657a). Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #35 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 94.73% 94.73% ======================================= Files 3 3 Lines 304 304 ======================================= Hits 288 288 Misses 16 16 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/omsf-eco-infra/gha-runner/pull/35/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=omsf-eco-infra) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/omsf-eco-infra/gha-runner/pull/35/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=omsf-eco-infra) | `94.73% <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=omsf-eco-infra#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.

ethanholz commented 1 week ago

@dwhswenson this is ready for review and has all the pieces in place for running multiple tests!

ethanholz commented 1 week ago

One thing to note, our previous PR #24, had the initial staging for CI docs (specifically a test plan). We may want to consider splitting docs for CI into its own PR that is separate from that PR.