ci: add support for injecting the latest ops when uv is used #1477
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
james-garner-canonical
approved these changes
Nov 29, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Comparing the failures on your manual run to the previous one, it looks like self-signed-certificates-operator passes now, and there are no new failures
dimaqq
approved these changes
Dec 2, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When
uvis used (as with self-signed-certificates-operator), the published-charms-tests workflow doesn't know how to inject the latest version of ops (there's no requirements.txt file).This PR updates the workflow to look for
uv.lockand if it exists then it usesuvto change theopssource inpyproject.toml.self-signed-certificates-operator doesn't use
uvto do the install intoxso we have to modify the raw sources list rather than have it be uv-specific. However, this should work even for projects that do, since the raw list is the originator of the dependencies - we might need to re-lock if other projects handle this differently, but we don't for now, so I've avoided that.I've tested this manually, and have it manually against the branch (where it did install ops from my branch).