PEP621 and hatch scripts

[LecrisUT]

Here are various modernizaitons to the pyproject

• Switched to PEP621
• Switched to src-layout structure. Dropped as people are opposed to it
• Changed the build backend to hatchling
• Added some hatch environments and scripts to align with tmt a bit
• Switched the bin/fmf file to a script entry-point
• Functional change: Switched to dynamic version
• Simplified the spec file
• Removed .travis.yaml Small cleanups #237
• python-coveralls dependency was removed. Not sure where that one was used
• Switch PyPI publishing to trusted-publishing. This eliminates the use of the secret token. Closes Missing sdist in PyPI #224

[lukaszachy]

We need to be able to build on epel-9 which fails now (very likely contains too old macros/utils).

@psss WHat about epel-8 though, can we stop providing updates as we did with tmt? epel-8 has even older macros ;)

[lukaszachy]

Makefile contains useful stuff as 'make (s)rpm', 'make clean'. IMO we need leave it (it can call hatch commands though).

[lukaszachy]

Switched to src-layout structure.

We moved AWAY from it in the past. Easier to use libraries locally when python path works out of the box.

[LecrisUT]

We need to be able to build on epel-9 which fails now (very likely contains too old macros/utils).

Indeed, I was just about to look into that. I was debugging locally and I hit an issue with it just now about dynamic version. It's weird that the same setup is used in packit. That needs a bit of debugging.

Makefile contains useful stuff as 'make (s)rpm', 'make clean'. IMO we need leave it (it can call hatch commands though).

Sure thing. I would still prefer the CI, packit and spec to use the direct commands though. Fine with that?

We moved AWAY from it in the past. Easier to use libraries locally when python path works out of the box.

Roger. It is a dev preference in the end

[LecrisUT]

I am not sure why Rhel9 build is failing. I can't seem to debug it to check if the tmp folder includes .git_archival.txt. Any ideas on how to debug that?

[LecrisUT]

Seems like the error message in the JsonSchemaValidator is different on the other distros:

[31mFailed to load step data for DiscoverFmfStepData: Field 'DiscoverFmfStepData:ref' must be a string, 'int' found.�[0m
:: [ 18:35:04 ] :: [   FAIL   ] :: File '/var/tmp/rlRun_LOG.VEO4lNoT' should contain 'Failed to load step data for DiscoverFmfStepData: Field 'DiscoverFmfStepData:ref' must be unset or a string, 'int' found.' 

(note the lack of must be unset or...

And similar with tmt errors reported.

[psss]

@psss What about epel-8 though, can we stop providing updates as we did with tmt? epel-8 has even older macros ;)

Yes, I'd say we should keep fmf and tmt aligned, let's stop providing updates for el-8.

[LecrisUT]

Ok, this should be ok for this PR. @psss can someone look into the testing-farm failures? They are in the integration test and it should just need a more relaxed check of the fail message.

[psss]

@psss can someone look into the testing-farm failures? They are in the integration test and it should just need a more relaxed check of the fail message.

The testing farm failures were most probably caused by the fresh tmt not being in the stable repo. Should be good now.

[psss]

/packit test

[LecrisUT]

@lukaszachy , @psss Ok, with this Epel 9 is fixed. Thanks to Nikola from packit for debugging the issue. I've also expanded the github tests, can someone trigger them? I've also enabled codecov, but on my project it did not work without a secret token. Maybe that needs to be setup here as well?

[LecrisUT]

/packit test

[LecrisUT]

@lukaszachy, @psss, @happz Review for this one please?

[psss]

@psss What about epel-8 though, can we stop providing updates as we did with tmt? epel-8 has even older macros ;)

Yes, I'd say we should keep fmf and tmt aligned, let's stop providing updates for el-8.

Filed #212 to drop support for el8.

[psss]

@lukaszachy, @psss, @happz Review for this one please?

Sorry, had a bunch of stuff on the plate so I did no get to this. Will have a look, hopefully this week. Sorry for the delay.

[psss]

Let's finish this as one of the first things for the 1.4 release.

[LecrisUT]

Oh, I need to rebase (after #215), need anything else than that?

[psss]

Yes, please rebase. No other changes needed right now (at least from the quick look through the changes).

[chenrui333]

any luck with this PR?

[seberm]

Otherwise LGTM, thanks!

[psss]

Thanks for preparing this! Looks good to me, just two minor things.

[psss]

/packit build

[psss]

@martinhoyer, could you please review as well?

[martinhoyer]

test.pypi looks good: https://test.pypi.org/project/fmf/