build(ci): Remove TravisCI

[billyvg]

Travis sprung some surprise billing changes on us, so we are now prioritizing removing TravisCI completely.

[billyvg]

@untitaker Aside from zeus and ppc64le arch, do you see anything missing here?

We may be able to use https://github.com/marketplace/actions/run-on-architecture for a non amd64 arch.

[untitaker]

@billyvg lgtm, feel free to remove ppc.

wrt zeus I will ask what other SDKs are doing right now

[jan-auer]

@billyvg thanks for getting this started! I'll engage with you on this a little later. We should migrate to GH artifacts and the new publish actions like in sentry-javascript.

Would you mind if I propose a few simplifications to the CI setup, mostly consolidating most jobs in a single workflow? We've preferred that over too many workflows in the other SDKs and services that we have migrated so far.

[billyvg]

@jan-auer Sounds good!

[jan-auer]

Took the liberty to push a few changes directly to this branch:

• Use GitHub artifacts instead of Zeus, compatible with craft
• Change the craft status provider to GitHub
• No longer upload coverage anywhere other than codecov
• Add the current form of the release/publish action. It will be simplified pretty soon.
• Change the bump-version script so it warns when run from macOS (our usual approach atm).

@billyvg This is G2G from my end, thanks for doing the heavy lifting!

[untitaker]

going to trust y'all that the release workflow works

[billyvg]

@untitaker is it expected that 3.8 and 3.9 are failing?

[untitaker]

no. I will take a look tomorrow

[jan-auer]

Just noticed that I accidentally removed the build step for dists.

@untitaker is the intention to always build the dist or just on the release branch?

Separately, should we use venv instead of virtualenv to avoid having to install an additional package?

[untitaker]

@jan-auer

1. we can only build on release branch
2. we still support python 2 in the sdk, and venv does not work on python 2

[billyvg]

Thanks @jan-auer for rm'ing zeus.

And thanks @untitaker, can you take over this PR from here?

[jan-auer]

FWIW, 3.8 and 3.9 are failing on master already, so we can also merge as is and tackle the fixes in a follow-up.

[jan-auer]

That said, on the last two builds we received timeouts for the 3.7 test job:

The job running on runner GitHub Actions 36 has exceeded the maximum execution time of 30 minutes.

[billyvg]

@jan-auer pypy is super slow, and 3.7 seems to also be failing (not just timing out)

[untitaker]

I have concerns about the severe slowdown in gha. Does this still pay off financially?

I fixed master and restarted the build. If it is green feel free to merge anytime

(yes we need to fix the testsuite itself too - - though I don't have any ideas atm. If you have opinions lmk and we can brainstorm on slack)

[billyvg]

@untitaker yeah staying on travis is not an option for our active repos - I think if speed is an issue going forward, we can maybe parallelize? Not sure if that's doable with tox