fix: ci

[JaeAeich]

Summary by Sourcery

This pull request introduces significant enhancements to the project structure, including a revamped README.md, a Makefile for common tasks, Sphinx configuration for documentation, multiple GitHub Actions workflows for CI/CD, a Code of Conduct, a pull request template, pre-commit hooks, and placeholder test files. Additionally, it includes configuration files for Read the Docs and YAML linting.

• Enhancements:
  • Revamped README.md with badges, table of contents, and detailed sections for usage, installation, development, contributing, code of conduct, versioning, license, and contact information.
  • Added a Makefile to streamline common development tasks such as creating virtual environments, installing dependencies, running tests, and generating documentation.
  • Introduced a Sphinx configuration file (conf.py) for generating project documentation.
  • Added a custom GitHub Action for setting up Python and Poetry environments.
  • Created multiple GitHub workflows for code quality checks, testing, PR validation, documentation checks, and vulnerability scans.
  • Added a Code of Conduct document to outline community standards and enforcement policies.
  • Included a PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md to standardize pull request submissions.
  • Added a .pre-commit-config.yaml file to configure pre-commit hooks for code quality and formatting checks.
  • Introduced a .safety-policy.yml file for managing security policies and vulnerability scanning.
  • Added placeholder test files and directories for unit and integration tests.
• CI:
  • Set up GitHub Actions workflows for code quality, testing, PR validation, documentation checks, and vulnerability scans.
• Documentation:
  • Significantly updated the README.md to include badges, detailed sections, and a table of contents.
  • Added Sphinx configuration and Makefile for generating project documentation.
• Tests:
  • Added placeholder test files for unit and integration tests to avoid errors during test runs.
• Chores:
  • Added a .cruft.json file to manage project template updates.
  • Included a .readthedocs.yaml file for configuring Read the Docs builds.
  • Added a .yamllint.yaml file for YAML linting configuration.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide by Sourcery

This pull request enhances the documentation and development workflow by updating the README.md, improving the Code of Conduct, and refining the pull request template. It also updates the CI configuration for better dependency management and modifies the release workflow to use a different secret name. Significant changes include the addition of new badges, Makefile commands, improved documentation configuration, and various GitHub Actions workflows for code quality, testing, PR validation, and release management.

File-Level Changes

Files	Changes
README.md CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md	Enhanced documentation and templates for better readability, clarity, and compliance with contributing guidelines.
.github/actions/setup/poetry/action.yaml .github/workflows/code_quality.yaml .github/workflows/code_test.yaml .github/workflows/pr_validation.yaml .github/workflows/update.yaml .github/workflows/vulnerability.yaml .github/workflows/docs.yaml .github/workflows/release.yaml	Updated CI configuration for better dependency management and added various GitHub Actions workflows for code quality, testing, PR validation, and release management.
Makefile docs/Makefile docs/make.bat	Added Makefiles for building and managing the project and documentation.
tests/test_integration/test_dummy.py tests/test_unit/test_dummy.py tests/__init__.py tests/test_integration/__init__.py tests/test_unit/__init__.py	Added dummy test files and init files for test packages to avoid errors and prepare for future tests.

---

Tips

• Trigger a new Sourcery review by commenting @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue your discussion with Sourcery by replying directly to review comments.
• You can change your review settings at any time by accessing your dashboard:
  • Enable or disable the Sourcery-generated pull request summary or reviewer's guide;
  • Change the review language;
• You can always contact us if you have any questions or feedback.

[JaeAeich]

changing the base to be able to check CI, this is not supposed to be merged in main but maybe in basic-structure branch.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @JaeAeich - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟢 General issues: all looks good
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟢 Testing: all looks good
• 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
• 🟡 Documentation: 5 issues found

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment to tell me if it was helpful.}

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @JaeAeich - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟡 General issues: 1 issue found
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟡 Testing: 1 issue found
• 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
• 🟡 Documentation: 5 issues found

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment to tell me if it was helpful.}

[JaeAeich]

@uniqueg @psankhe28 finally this fixes all the issues that we have been facing hopefully.

CI for code test are failing because this repo is does not have CODECOV_TOKEN, so that should pass those test as well.
Base branch is main because otherwise I couldnt test CI stuff, now easiest way would be either merge this into main or merge this branch into yours and merge that into main.

@uniqueg for anyone to now create a new repo with all the test passing would be to create the repo and be sure to generate docs using make d and push it. This should pass all the CI, given all the TOKENs are in place.
I have extensively tested cookiecutter and made change accordingly, so I think we should be good to merge this PR as well.

[uniqueg]

See #3 (comment) and the comment above, @JaeAeich & @psankhe28

[JaeAeich]

refer to #10