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

[WIP] Experiment with pixi for CI #218

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

[WIP] Experiment with pixi for CI #218

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

hadim
Copy link
Contributor

@hadim hadim commented Nov 30, 2023

Changelogs

  • enumerate the changes of that PR.

Checklist:

  • Was this PR discussed in an issue? It is recommended to first discuss a new feature into a GitHub issue before opening a PR.
  • Add tests to cover the fixed bug(s) or the new introduced feature(s) (if appropriate).
  • Update the API documentation is a new function is added, or an existing one is deleted.
  • Write concise and explanatory changelogs below.
  • If possible, assign one of the following labels to the PR: feature, fix or test (or ask a maintainer to do it for you).

This is an experiment to try to understand two things: 1) whether pixi can be a faster alternative than micromamba 2) whether it's mature enough and has enough features for us (matrix testing)

Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 30, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (c23d273) 91.95% compared to head (1143cbd) 91.90%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #218      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.95%   91.90%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files          46       46              
  Lines        3843     3843              
==========================================
- Hits         3534     3532       -2     
- Misses        309      311       +2     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 91.90% <ø> (-0.06%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

@hadim
Copy link
Contributor Author

hadim commented Nov 30, 2023

I will close here.

In short, pixi CI is not really faster than the current micromamba one. It's expected since micromamba is already quite fast and the current bottlenecks are things we can't control: 1) deps downloading and extracting or 2) cache downloading and extracting.

Finally, matrix CIs is possible but a bit hacky currently (see https://github.com/Quantco/polarify/blob/dcc30139873c4aa7500465e116b6f9f6194b77b3/.github/workflows/ci.yml#L19-L40). That being said, it will very soon be much easier (see prefix-dev/pixi#239).


TLDR: I foresee a bright future for the pixi tool, but for now, it does not make sense to switch datamol to it.

@hadim hadim closed this Nov 30, 2023
@hadim hadim deleted the testing_pixi branch November 30, 2023 14:40
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant