Add Travis CI and Codecov integrations

racket / racket-pkg-website

A frontend for the Racket Package Catalog.

Other

11 stars 16 forks source link

Add Travis CI and Codecov integrations #46

Closed jackfirth closed 3 years ago

jackfirth commented 7 years ago

This PR adds support for continuous testing with Travis CI and test coverage reports with Codecov. Some tweaks are included to make this easier:

The code in /src is now a package with an info.rkt file declaring dependencies
The static.rkt script now only reads configuration and starts a daemon thread when its main submodule is invoked
A failing test in package-source.rkt is "fixed" (quoted because I'm not sure if my fix was correct, please check the commit)

For this to work, you'll need to connect your Github account with Travis CI and Codecov and enable this repository in Travis CI. Codecov will automatically start working once Travis CI pushes coverage reports.

jeapostrophe commented 7 years ago

What does it test?

jackfirth commented 7 years ago

At the moment, only the already-present test submodules of anything in the src/ directory and that there are no compilation errors. Future work can add more tests.

SuzanneSoy commented 3 years ago

LGTM :)

jeapostrophe commented 3 years ago

@tonyg Can you comment on the static changes?

tonyg commented 3 years ago

I don't understand the motivation for the static.rkt changes, I'm afraid - and in particular, wrapping the reload signal in a main module+ will break autoreloading I suspect! Jack, can you expand a bit on what led you to these changes?

Regarding the failing test, it's quite possible that the URL parsing stuff has changed in core racket since I (?) wrote the test so the test could well be wrong - the fix doesn't quite smell right.

jackfirth commented 3 years ago

Actually enough has changed in the CI world since I wrote this pull request that I no longer think using Travis CI is a good idea, and I certainly don't remember any of the reasoning behind the changes I made here. So I'll just close this. Using GitHub Actions for CI would probably be the better way to go nowadays.