Skip to content

Add workflow_dispatch for CI #56

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 14, 2025
Merged

Add workflow_dispatch for CI #56

merged 1 commit into from
May 14, 2025

Conversation

andreasnoack
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

Copy link

codecov bot commented May 14, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 87.59%. Comparing base (fe4e44e) to head (4a48ec4).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master      #56   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   87.59%   87.59%           
=======================================
  Files           6        6           
  Lines         137      137           
=======================================
  Hits          120      120           
  Misses         17       17           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@DilumAluthge DilumAluthge merged commit 09eca87 into master May 14, 2025
10 checks passed
@DilumAluthge DilumAluthge deleted the andreasnoack-patch-1 branch May 14, 2025 15:14
@oschulz
Copy link
Collaborator

oschulz commented May 14, 2025

@andreasnoack should this be added to Julia CI configs in general?

@andreasnoack
Copy link
Member Author

I think that would be a good idea. It is just really useful to be able to kick off a CI run on master. I saw some confusing failures downstream related to this package and speculated if they were a consequence of Julia 1.11 and wanted to check with a CI run. (The issue was actually that the downstream package ran CI with 1.9 but that is a separate story)

@oschulz
Copy link
Collaborator

oschulz commented May 14, 2025

I think that would be a good idea. It is just really useful to be able to kick off a CI run on master.

Thanks, I'll put it on the to-do list for other packages.

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.

3 participants