-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Enable completion tracking by default #354
Conversation
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.
This file added so that the "sample ETL runs" in our docs, which point at this folder, can continue working.
b0a482b
to
5ad9a7e
Compare
.github/workflows/docker-hub.yaml
Outdated
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.
This file's changes are not yet tested - let's hope it works? Else I can do some fix up PRs afterward. Not sure to best test this piece of the deployment mechanism (without affecting existing users of our docker images)
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.
you could temporarily change the tagging strategy? then you could run it from this branch without disruption?
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 did this - and it did catch an issue, so good idea to push back against my yolo strategy 😄 - filed the docker stuff separately though in #355
☂️ Python Coverage
Overall Coverage
New FilesNo new covered files... Modified Files
|
.github/workflows/docker-hub.yaml
Outdated
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.
you could temporarily change the tagging strategy? then you could run it from this branch without disruption?
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.
coherence check - do we need to add any updates anyplace else? should we link to the expectations from sections of the docs like sample runs to call out some of the new assumptions?
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.
OK yeah, I added a link to this bulk export doc from the sample run doc in the "more realistic command" section, like "and if you want real data, see this doc for how"
5a3ca1e
to
6982a60
Compare
This allows us to build on Python 3.13 - I've tested that we pass tests on that version as well (i.e. we don't seem to be affected by the deprecation removal in 3.13)
And remove deprecated chart-review alias for upload-notes, since this is a good time to break CLI promises.
- Removes the --write-completion opt-in flag, it is now always enabled. - Requires export group name and timestamp information to be available, either from export log or from CLI. - Updates some user docs, explaining how completion tracking expects to be fed data.
6982a60
to
ef7e6f4
Compare
chart-review
(old name forupload-notes
)This is the last big piece of #296
Checklist
docs/
) needs to be updated