Skip to content

Add ability to run CI on a single integration despite changes to core files #128544

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Add ability to run CI on a single integration despite changes to core files #128544

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

@epenet
Copy link
Contributor

@epenet epenet commented Oct 17, 2024

Proposed change

Sometimes we want to make changes to CI and/or some core files and test the changes on a single integration.

This makes it easier to adjust in those scenarios... just update a single line and it will run the CI for that/those integrations.

Type of change

  • Dependency upgrade
  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New integration (thank you!)
  • New feature (which adds functionality to an existing integration)
  • Deprecation (breaking change to happen in the future)
  • Breaking change (fix/feature causing existing functionality to break)
  • Code quality improvements to existing code or addition of tests

Additional information

  • This PR fixes or closes issue: fixes #
  • This PR is related to issue:
  • Link to documentation pull request:

Checklist

  • The code change is tested and works locally.
  • Local tests pass. Your PR cannot be merged unless tests pass
  • There is no commented out code in this PR.
  • I have followed the development checklist
  • I have followed the perfect PR recommendations
  • The code has been formatted using Ruff (ruff format homeassistant tests)
  • Tests have been added to verify that the new code works.

If user exposed functionality or configuration variables are added/changed:

If the code communicates with devices, web services, or third-party tools:

  • The manifest file has all fields filled out correctly.
    Updated and included derived files by running: python3 -m script.hassfest.
  • New or updated dependencies have been added to requirements_all.txt.
    Updated by running python3 -m script.gen_requirements_all.
  • For the updated dependencies - a link to the changelog, or at minimum a diff between library versions is added to the PR description.

To help with the load of incoming pull requests:

@epenet epenet requested a review from a team as a code owner October 17, 2024 06:24
frenck
frenck requested changes Oct 17, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@frenck frenck left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure why this needs to be in CI?

@home-assistant
Copy link

home-assistant bot commented Oct 17, 2024

Please take a look at the requested changes, and use the Ready for review button when you are done, thanks 👍

Learn more about our pull request process.

@home-assistant home-assistant bot marked this pull request as draft October 17, 2024 06:27
@joostlek
Copy link
Member

joostlek commented Oct 17, 2024

Sometimes we want to make changes to CI and/or some core files and test the changes on a single integration.

Why do we want this? I usually run these tests locally, and use the CI to make sure I didn't mess up other integrations or forgot use cases

@epenet
Copy link
Contributor Author

epenet commented Oct 17, 2024

Sometimes we want to make changes to CI and/or some core files and test the changes on a single integration.

Why do we want this? I usually run these tests locally, and use the CI to make sure I didn't mess up other integrations or forgot use cases

#128162 is working just fine on my own machine, but it is failing on Home Assistant CI
I just don't understand why that is... so I'm running various tests

It's not first time that local runs differ from Home Assistant CI, and I thought it might be nice to ease that override.

@frenck
Copy link
Member

frenck commented Oct 17, 2024

I'm not following, that sounds like a solution for an edge case; we can run the full CI for those exceptions? Not sure why we would add more complexity for this.

../Frenck

@epenet
Copy link
Contributor Author

epenet commented Oct 17, 2024

I needed this indeed for an edge case.
I needed it, I struggled with it, and I thought that I would share my solution.

I no longer need it (it was useful to resolve the issue in #128162), so if you think it adds too much complexity to the flow you can close this PR.

@frenck frenck closed this Oct 17, 2024
@epenet epenet deleted the 20241017-0817 branch October 17, 2024 07:11
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 18, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Reviewers

@frenck frenck frenck requested changes

Copilot code review Copilot Awaiting requested review from Copilot Copilot will automatically review once the pull request is marked ready for review

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

cla-signed new-feature small-pr PRs with less than 30 lines.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@epenet @joostlek @frenck