Skip to content
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

Add a semantic versioning checker #1219

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 2, 2024
Merged

Conversation

Luni-4
Copy link
Collaborator

@Luni-4 Luni-4 commented Feb 1, 2024

Checklist

  • Confirmed that run-checks all script has been executed.
  • Made sure the book is up to date with changes in this PR.

Related Issues/PRs

A semantic versioning checker lints API changes for semver violations. Even this check will run periodically on CI not to stress a lot the entire infrastracture

@Luni-4 Luni-4 marked this pull request as draft February 1, 2024 09:38
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 1, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (9df2071) 84.41% compared to head (7125121) 84.41%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1219   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   84.41%   84.41%           
=======================================
  Files         549      549           
  Lines       61952    61952           
=======================================
  Hits        52295    52295           
  Misses       9657     9657           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@Luni-4
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Luni-4 commented Feb 1, 2024

I tried to cross-compile metal on Linux but it is not possible as stated here. How can I disable that building? Is there a way to automatically not enable the compilation on a system different from MacOs or I have to use DISABLE_WGPU environment variable?

@Luni-4
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Luni-4 commented Feb 1, 2024

Ok, fixed everything

@Luni-4 Luni-4 marked this pull request as ready for review February 1, 2024 23:04
@syl20bnr
Copy link
Member

syl20bnr commented Feb 2, 2024

Thank you, that's a valuable check to have. Do we want to activate it before we hit the 1.0 mark ? Or is this action smart enough to understand projects in 0.x ?

@Luni-4
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Luni-4 commented Feb 2, 2024

It should work, it uses the same vulnerabilities.yml semantic and that actions run https://github.com/tracel-ai/burn/actions/runs/7731579136 when we published 0.12 version.

@syl20bnr syl20bnr self-requested a review February 2, 2024 14:37
Copy link
Member

@syl20bnr syl20bnr 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 try this one, thank you 👍🏻

Copy link
Member

@nathanielsimard nathanielsimard 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 if this is a valuable check for us, since every release will be a breaking change until v1.0. Adding a check for patches seems a bit too much in term of process.

What do you think @antimora @syl20bnr ?

@antimora
Copy link
Collaborator

antimora commented Feb 2, 2024

I'm not sure if this is a valuable check for us, since every release will be a breaking change until v1.0. Adding a check for patches seems a bit too much in term of process.

What do you think @antimora @syl20bnr ?

Probably the value to know what APIs are breaking. From the docs, it appears it's used before a publish operation.

I think it's also useful once we go 1.0. So it might be useful to get accustomed.

@Luni-4
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Luni-4 commented Feb 2, 2024

I'm not sure if this is a valuable check for us, since every release will be a breaking change until v1.0. Adding a check for patches seems a bit too much in term of process.

What do you think @antimora @syl20bnr ?

Actually it runs perfectly comparing 0.12.0 and 0.11.1, so we can use that before 1.0. I agree with @antimora about getting accustomed, and yep, it runs before a publish operation

@nathanielsimard
Copy link
Member

Ok then, let's try it!

@nathanielsimard nathanielsimard merged commit f223297 into tracel-ai:main Feb 2, 2024
14 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants