Rename CI/CD action to conform to aio-libs standard

[jakob-keller]

Description of Change

Partially adresses #1154 (comment) by renaming our CI GitHub workflow.

Since we do not use GitHub environments and trusted publisher expects pypi, this might still fail. @webknjaz: Is the environment really required or could you remove it, at least temporarily?

Assumptions

None

Checklist for All Submissions

• I have added change info to CHANGES.rst
• If this is resolving an issue (needed so future developers can determine if change is still necessary and under what conditions) (can be provided via link to issue with these details):
  • Detailed description of issue
  • Alternative methods considered (if any)
  • How issue is being resolved
  • How issue can be reproduced
• If this is providing a new feature (can be provided via link to issue with these details):
  • Detailed description of new feature
  • Why needed
  • Alternatives methods considered (if any)

Checklist when updating botocore and/or aiohttp versions

• I have read and followed CONTRIBUTING.rst
• I have updated test_patches.py where/if appropriate (also check if no changes necessary)
• I have ensured that the awscli/boto3 versions match the updated botocore version

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 87.03%. Comparing base (5a17c06) to head (656eb96).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1158   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   87.03%   87.03%           
=======================================
  Files          64       64           
  Lines        5969     5969           
=======================================
  Hits         5195     5195           
  Misses        774      774           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	87.03% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[jakob-keller]

If we need to create the pypi deployment environment, that would need to be done by the repo owner. Which means, I am blocked.

[webknjaz]

Yes, the requirement is required for tighter security. And no, creating environments does not block you, technically, because they are auto-created when the corresponding job using them runs.

That said, I'll still look into creating one in order to apply protection rules and provide the last approval gate through a button on GH.

[webknjaz]

Plz also add environment.url with github.ref_name rendered in. It will show up in a few places in the UI.

Additionally, I recommend running dist build unconditionally, at the very beginning of the workflow + running twine check --strict. It's not pleasant when the metadata validation fails at the last moment when releasing.
Besides, it'd provide a good indicator of the ability to build it continuously.
I personally even run tests against those. But this is something that could be explored in a follow-up.

Another thing I noticed is that building the dists uses a deprecated method.
https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/guides/modernize-setup-py-project/

[jakob-keller]

I will look into that! Your help is much appreciated. We have accumulated a bit of technical debt here and there :-)

[webknjaz]

Feel free to ask me about CI. I'm trying to streamline it across the org. I think that some good examples can be found in aiomonitor/aiomysql/yarl/frozenlist/multidict. Some aren't fully synchronized, though.

P.S. I checked the repo settings only to find out that I've already configured the environment long ago 😂

[thehesiod]

am i ok to approve, anything left?

[jakob-keller]

This is part of restoring publishing to PyPI and may be approved (and merged). There will be two more related PRs: #1160 and another one that introduces the pypi deployment environment. But we can split those to keep it simple.

[jakob-keller]

#1163 will fix the missing deployment environment. After that, we should be able to publish again.

[jakob-keller]

I opened #1164 to track metadata validation