ENH: Use check for PR instead of status

[pllim]

Follow up of #45 to actually use the set_check API.

TODO:

• Is this what we really want?
• Fix tests, if they fail.
• How to play with this before merge for all the scenarios being handled in the PR checks?

[astrofrog]

I think we do want this, because the text is sometimes too long for the status bar. I'm not sure if you can play with it for all the scenarios but I'd definitely recommend trying it out on a test repository just to get a sense for what this will look like. If you set it up for a test repo, I can try and open some pull requests to see how it behaves :)

[bsipocz]

What would this mean in practice besides adding the "checks" tab on the PR? Would the way how the statuses currently are reported back change, so one always need to click to go to the "checks" tab?

[astrofrog]

I'm not 100% sure, so it would be nice to see this in action in a test repo

[pllim]

@astrofrog , pretty sure we tested this in Tucson last year. You were sitting next to me. And we even hi-fived.

[Cadair]

I would imagine it would work like Azure does.

I am onboard with this plan, given we already removed the auto-comment builder functionality 😛

[astrofrog]

Oh yeah I do remember testing it now :) We might have to test it again to address some of @Cadair's comments though

[pllim]

@Cadair 's comment addressed. How do I test this on a test repo? @astrofrog , I remember you doing some magic with the experimental branch, is that the way to go?

[pllim]

I need this change to test stuff without installation number.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #73 into master will decrease coverage by 0.99%.
The diff coverage is 82.6%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master      #73   +/-   ##
=======================================
- Coverage   82.33%   81.34%   -1%     
=======================================
  Files          16       16           
  Lines         804      820   +16     
=======================================
+ Hits          662      667    +5     
- Misses        142      153   +11

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
baldrick/plugins/github_pull_requests.py	76.11% <66.66%> (ø)	⬆️
baldrick/github/github_api.py	63.22% <88.23%> (-1.64%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ba92ebb...033df7c. Read the comment docs.

[pllim]

Update: I finally got around to fixing the tests. I think this is ready for a test run on the "experimental" branch.

Err... wait, where is the experimental bot?

[Cadair]

I just deployed this on my test giles instance: Cadair/testgiles#2

[pllim]

How you liking it?

[Cadair]

It seems to work, I just pushed it out to Giles proper

[astrofrog]

Looks good to me. To test this out once merged, we need to push an update to the experimental branch of astropy-bot (after making sure it's up to date with master) and the experimental bot will then be active on the following repository:

https://github.com/astropy/astropy-bot-sandbox

[pllim]

@astrofrog , I made astropy-bot experimental branch in sync with master. Then I opened astropy/astropy-bot-sandbox#1 but no GitHub Checks appear. How long does it take for the experimental branch to deploy? More than a few secs?