-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Defining new action for python wrapper wheels #161
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
Conversation
30943fa
to
6081ff5
Compare
6081ff5
to
31e17cc
Compare
# we'd ideally not reexecute the compile step multiple times, but it | ||
# (non-essentially) depends on a matrix-based step. Add more pythons, possibly | ||
# more manylinuxes | ||
python_version: ["3.11", "3.13"] |
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.
I'd add more Pythons from the start (3.9 to 3.13) because it will be a pain to add them later if we've already uploaded wheels for some Python versions and not others (I know from experience!)
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.
sure, I just didn't want the initial test to run that long :), I'll update pre-merge. Also, note each entry in the matrix still requires the full compilation (redundantly...)
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.
@tmi - I'm happy with this - are you ready for me to merge it in?
@iainrussell yes, happy with this being merged |
Merged, and it now has the v2 tag 🚀 |
The common logic behind the python wrapper wheel publishing
Demonstration of "success": https://github.com/ecmwf/eckit/actions/runs/13182965534/job/36798126868 -- it actually failed because the wheels already exist (or because of the compile error thats to be fixed elsewhere). But it executed what it should have execute, so all good from the local pov
I have a single parameter because the validation wasn't passing otherwise -- but so far we don't need any parametrization