npigoux
npigoux
To be sure I understood correctly, we want to verify that the changes made in the CS fit with the diracx config schema. So should this verification happen when we...
I would personally rename the labels `skip docs` -> `skip-docs` and `skip tests` -> `skip-tests` to keep same logic with other labels. But doesn't change anything.
> I remember that this was incredibly fiddly to get working properly for [ctapipe](https://github.com/cta-observatory/ctapipe/pull/2227/files), in the end the blessed string that worked for us there was this: > > ```...
> Thanks @natthan-pigoux. I agree with the naming convention. Can we also add one that skips the entire CI? I would also agree with the above comment that we can...
> A meta comment is it would be good if there was a way to skip just the data-tests, since they are by far the heaviest and not all changes...
@Astro-Kirsty , I added a condition to also skip the linting step. So by combining the 3 skip labels in the PR no CI jobs should run. Moreover, do you...
I'm not completely sure the verification was expected to be in `Modifcator`. Also not sure where to write the diracx related code.
Thanks @fstagni for the clarification.
One possible issue I see in what I've done is that, if my understanding is correct, in Modificatior, `cfgData` corresponds to the entire CS config. If there is many validation...
> It's probably OK. I am also wondering if instead of simply displaying a warning, the commit should simply be refused. In the issue it is precised that: > Not...