Skip to content

Readme badges and pyproject cleanup #3378

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
May 20, 2025
Merged

Conversation

martinhoyer
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm not a friend with rst and have more experience with markdown. Will this render ok on PyPI page and other places? We also need to deal with man generation I presume?
PyPA should be ok based on:

$ twine check dist/tmt-1.40.0.dev2+ga31e8651-py3-none-any.whl --strict
Checking dist/tmt-1.40.0.dev2+ga31e8651-py3-none-any.whl: PASSED

github would look like this:
image

In pyproject, I've replaced Python 3.11 with 3.13 and removed the unmaintainable comments of what versions are available where.

Pull Request Checklist

  • implement the feature

@martinhoyer martinhoyer self-assigned this Nov 25, 2024
@martinhoyer martinhoyer added the code | trivial A simple patch - a couple of lines, an easy-to-understand change, a typo fix. label Apr 10, 2025
@psss psss added this to the 1.47 milestone Apr 10, 2025
@happz happz added this to planning Apr 10, 2025
@happz happz moved this to review in planning Apr 10, 2025
@martinhoyer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

image

Needs consensus on what badges are actually useful (which once to pick) and which of those make sense for them to be dynamic (versions, build successful).

I would say that Copr can be renamed to "Development/nighly builds" and just point to teemtee/latest, for example.

@happz
Copy link
Collaborator

happz commented Apr 10, 2025

image

Needs consensus on what badges are actually useful (which once to pick) and which of those make sense for them to be dynamic (versions, build successful).

I would say that Copr can be renamed to "Development/nighly builds" and just point to teemtee/latest, for example.

I'd probably drop "ruff" and "pre-commit", the rest will lead a user to some artifacts or docs, while these two are more like a statement, "yup, we test it", and we don't expect these to ever be red for main branch, correct?

@psss
Copy link
Collaborator

psss commented Apr 16, 2025

I'd probably drop "ruff" and "pre-commit", the rest will lead a user to some artifacts or docs, while these two are more like a statement, "yup, we test it", and we don't expect these to ever be red for main branch, correct?

Agreed, I feel it the same way.

Copy link
Collaborator

@psss psss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's use the fresh copr link.

@psss psss moved this from review to implement in planning Apr 16, 2025
@thrix thrix requested a review from psss April 17, 2025 10:53
@psss psss modified the milestones: 1.47, 1.48 Apr 23, 2025
@martinhoyer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

martinhoyer commented Apr 23, 2025

I'd probably drop "ruff" and "pre-commit", the rest will lead a user to some artifacts or docs, while these two are more like a statement, "yup, we test it", and we don't expect these to ever be red for main branch, correct?

Agreed, I feel it the same way.

@psss @happz I don't see what's wrong with that. It just tells people that this project uses pre-commit and ruff, which can increase the respect for the project, making them more likely to get involved. I mean, it's literally called a "badge".

Alas, removed as requested.

EDIT: oh and it can remind people to run pre-commit install. I tend to forget in new repos ;)

@martinhoyer martinhoyer moved this from implement to review in planning Apr 23, 2025
@martinhoyer martinhoyer added the ci | full test Pull request is ready for the full test execution label Apr 23, 2025
@martinhoyer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The dependency version bumps shouldn't make any difference in theory, but just to be safe, added full_test label

@martinhoyer martinhoyer requested review from thrix and mcasquer April 29, 2025 14:39
@mcasquer
Copy link
Collaborator

@martinhoyer LGTM, just a thought: do you think we can point the python-versions badge to a different place than pypi? IMHO some place in the docs would be better although I haven't found anything apart from a brief mention in the Unit Tests section

@martinhoyer martinhoyer added this to the 1.49 milestone May 9, 2025
@happz happz added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation and removed ci | full test Pull request is ready for the full test execution labels May 14, 2025
@happz happz moved this from merge to implement in planning May 15, 2025
@martinhoyer martinhoyer moved this from implement to review in planning May 15, 2025
@happz happz moved this from review to merge in planning May 19, 2025
@happz happz added the ci | full test Pull request is ready for the full test execution label May 19, 2025
@happz
Copy link
Collaborator

happz commented May 19, 2025

Adding full test label - it seems trivial, but let's make sure RPMs built from the changed pyproject.toml don't hit any walls on distros beyond the core set of checks.

Co-authored-by: graphite-app[bot] <96075541+graphite-app[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@happz happz merged commit 745dd45 into teemtee:main May 20, 2025
21 checks passed
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from merge to done in planning May 20, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ci | full test Pull request is ready for the full test execution code | trivial A simple patch - a couple of lines, an easy-to-understand change, a typo fix. documentation Improvements or additions to documentation
Projects
Status: done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants