-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.8k
ci: azure: add pypy3 #4874
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
ci: azure: add pypy3 #4874
Conversation
Apparently it fails to install pip already: https://pytest-dev.visualstudio.com/pytest/_build/results?buildId=266&view=logs&jobId=fac34862-14df-5a01-cb3c-3a8c1839a642&taskId=f57acd34-2f9e-55ef-4fee-0f870d3891ff&lineStart=28&lineEnd=29&colStart=1&colEnd=1
|
So pypy was killed after 60 minutes, but then still failed to install codecov via pip: https://pytest-dev.visualstudio.com/pytest/_build/results?buildId=268 |
For reference, with just
|
Oh right, good catch. What's the state of this PR now? I see we are running only |
Yes. Will clean it up, so that it can be merged (in case we enable coverage for pypy at some point). The codecov run looks a bit strange:
And it appears to not collect coverage correctly also:
Regarding the followin: can we fix PATH?
Maybe there is also an option with "choco" to do so? |
We can use:
Or so, but I wonder if we can use |
Yes, using |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, just need to bring back the other envs
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4874 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 94.48% 66.67% -27.81%
===========================================
Files 113 56 -57
Lines 25173 11402 -13771
Branches 2499 2071 -428
===========================================
- Hits 23784 7602 -16182
- Misses 1059 3136 +2077
- Partials 330 664 +334
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Well, coverage looks wrong (previous comment) - pushed a test via py34. |
While this is not used currently, it is still good for having it covered (it failed when running coverage with all jobs unconditionally).
No description provided.