[dev] [horizon] [tc] [release] [PTI] is tox a requirement even if tox is not used?
Hi, # I am not sure [tc] and [release] tags are appropriate. Horizon team maintains xstatic-* repositories [1]. We have a question on the need for tox.ini. Can we drop tox.ini completely considering the situation below? These repositories do not depend on 'tox' on testing from their nature of re-packaging JS module in a python way. In addition, there is no document provided. The current PTI mentions only "tox -e docs". # Previously PTI required "venv" tox ini but it is no longer mentioned. [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/?q=xstatic- Best Regards, Akihiro Motoki (IRC: amotoki)
On 2018-12-17 18:29:35 +0900 (+0900), Akihiro Motoki wrote: [...]
Can we drop tox.ini completely considering the situation below?
Seems reasonable to me. Can you help us clarify this in the Python PTI with a patch to openstack/governance?
These repositories do not depend on 'tox' on testing from their nature of re-packaging JS module in a python way. In addition, there is no document provided. The current PTI mentions only "tox -e docs".
I take it there's no point to publishing repository-specific documentation for these?
# Previously PTI required "venv" tox ini but it is no longer mentioned.
Yes, we used to require a tox "venv" testenv as a generic environment setup and invocation entrypoint for generating sdist tarballs and wheels to publish on PyPI, but have since switched to invoking the relevant tools directly under the system Python interpreter instead. -- Jeremy Stanley
On 2018-12-17 18:29:35 +0900 (+0900), Akihiro Motoki wrote: [...]
Can we drop tox.ini completely considering the situation below?
Seems reasonable to me. Can you help us clarify this in the Python PTI with a patch to openstack/governance?
These repositories do not depend on 'tox' on testing from their nature of re-packaging JS module in a python way. In addition, there is no document provided. The current PTI mentions only "tox -e docs".
I take it there's no point to publishing repository-specific documentation for these? well i think it would make sense to still use tox because of documentation. ideally we should use common docs tools even if the project is not written in python to maintian a common look and feel across all the offial proejcst. also presumably horizon will continue to use reno for release notes and
On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 14:42 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote: therefor we shoudl keep tox for that usecase also.
# Previously PTI required "venv" tox ini but it is no longer mentioned.
Yes, we used to require a tox "venv" testenv as a generic environment setup and invocation entrypoint for generating sdist tarballs and wheels to publish on PyPI, but have since switched to invoking the relevant tools directly under the system Python interpreter instead.
# Previously PTI required "venv" tox ini but it is no longer mentioned.
Yes, we used to require a tox "venv" testenv as a generic environment setup and invocation entrypoint for generating sdist tarballs and wheels to publish on PyPI, but have since switched to invoking the relevant tools directly under the system Python interpreter instead. -- Jeremy Stanley
Ah, this was the thing that jumped to mind when reading the earlier messages, but I wasn't sure if that had all changed. I know we had some release job issues at one point because of "tox -e venv" missing, but if the tooling has been updated now to not need that then I think we are probably safe dropping tox if there really is no other need for it.
participants (4)
-
Akihiro Motoki
-
Jeremy Stanley
-
Sean McGinnis
-
Sean Mooney