FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending |
URL:
| Home
Tools: [Download Repo ZIP]   [Original HTTPS Page]

CI: Move appveyor/azure jobs to GitHub actions by greglucas · Pull Request #32395 · matplotlib/matplotlib · GitHub

Repository navigation

CI: Move appveyor/azure jobs to GitHub actions - #32395

Open
greglucas wants to merge 4 commits into
matplotlib:mainfrom
greglucas:ci/windows-github-actions
Open

greglucas wants to merge 4 commits into
matplotlib:mainfrom
greglucas:ci/windows-github-actions

Conversation

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

PR summary

The appveyor and azure jobs frequently have issues and take much longer to run. When doing some quick googling it looks like GitHub Actions uses the same underlying infrastructure but may get more resources per each CI job. This is an attempt to consolidate our CI into one common language so we don't have to know what the configuration formats for multiple CI providers is either.

Since Windows had some bespoke things in it I made this a separate workflow file so we don't overwhelm the existing tests yaml with conditions of if windows...

AI Disclosure

I had AI do the conversion of the configuration files from appveyor/azure into GitHub Actions and read through the output before PRing. I am not fluent in powershell, but it all looks reasonable.

greglucas added the CI: testing CI configuration and testing label Sep 25, 2026
github-actions Bot added the Documentation: devdocs files in doc/devel label Sep 25, 2026

iccir commented Sep 25, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I asked about this in the weekly meeting yesterday! There was mention that we keep Appveyor around because it tests conda, although I don't think anyone is enthusiastic about the frequent hangs.

A lot of the discussion went over my head though as I'm still new to the whole Python ecosystem.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I asked about this in the weekly meeting yesterday! There was mention that we keep Appveyor around because it tests conda, although I don't think anyone is enthusiastic about the frequent hangs.

I did port the conda test as well and now it looks like there must be some architectural difference (or running these tests now when we weren't before) because there are two minor 3d plot image comparison changes.

rcomer linked an issue Sep 25, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request
greglucas force-pushed the ci/windows-github-actions branch from a937204 to 8eaedaf Compare September 25, 2026 15:35

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Not sure why the codecov/patch is reporting 0% diff, clicking into it does show the lines are being hit/missed same as before as expected.

Looking at the timings, all CI jobs finished in 23 minutes, versus ~33 minutes (or more) on the previous azure/appveyor versions.

QuLogic left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

There are some similar mentions to AppVeyor/Azure in test_backends_interactive.py as well.

Comment thread .github/workflows/windows-tests.yml Outdated
Comment thread .github/workflows/windows-tests.yml Outdated
Comment thread .github/workflows/windows-tests.yml Outdated
Comment thread .github/workflows/windows-tests.yml Outdated
Comment thread .github/workflows/windows-tests.yml Outdated

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Thanks for the review, I addressed all the comments and updated the docs to either remove azure/appveyor references or change to the more generic Windows CI.

iccir commented Oct 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Do we think that this will solve the general flakiness of AppVeyor timing out at the hour mark? Additionally, will this solve the problem where codecov generates false positives because it is missing a build?

I'm of the opinion that because it fails so much, the AppVeyor CI is something that we are all subconsciously ignoring.

I can review in more detail when I get back tonight; however, I don't know how valuable my review will be on most of this. That said, as long as we are properly testing conda, merging this PR has to be better than having a CI step that we ignore.

QuLogic commented Oct 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Not sure why the codecov/patch is reporting 0% diff, clicking into it does show the lines are being hit/missed same as before as expected.

It seems to have fixed itself with the rebases.

Do we think that this will solve the general flakiness of AppVeyor timing out at the hour mark? Additionally, will this solve the problem where codecov generates false positives because it is missing a build?

Well, this PR removes AppVeyor, so ... yes.

iccir commented Oct 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Well, this PR removes AppVeyor, so ... yes.

I… probably should have phrased that differently. I couldn't remember if the timeout issue was inherent to the Windows platform (and thus could show up in GitHub actions as well), inherent to conda, or something to do with AppVeyor itself.

QuLogic commented Oct 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Sorry, that was a bit snarky. I don't think we expect it to be Windows-specific, just that AppVeyor only has 1 core and a fixed time limit.

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

CI: testing CI configuration and testing Documentation: devdocs files in doc/devel topic: mplot3d

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[MNT]: move Windows tests to GitHub Actions?

3 participants


Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL