Update Spack CI

[ajaust]

This PR updates the Spack based CI included in the repository:

• I have renamed the namespace of the self-defined Spack repository in spack/repo/ to pyprecice.test such that it is easier to distinguish from the Spack commands.
• I updated the Dockerfile to add our own repository before py-pyprecice is added to the environment.
• I updated the Dockerfile and the CI configuration to explicitly use pyprecice.text.py-pyrecice@develop.
  • Here I would need feedback if that makes sense for the Build Spack workflow or if we should still base it on the "normal" py-pyprecice included in Spack.

Replaces #115

[BenjaminRodenberg]

Looks good 👍
Just a minor addition: Added a changelog entry.

[ajaust]

Is it possible to run the action here to see that it did not break?

[BenjaminRodenberg]

Currently the action does not work for two reasons:

1. Action not triggered

Action is not triggered by PR (fixed by 9cfdb5e). We should add this change directly on develop.

2. Forks/Branches not properly supported

precice/ci-spack-pyprecice-deps-1804 is still the "old" container based on the dockerfile from develop. But we need the dockerfile from this PR. Currently it's not easily possible to work with branches/forks here, because the tag of the dockerfile is hardcoded:

python-bindings/.github/workflows/build-spack.yml

Line 14 in 0d9b589

container: precice/ci-spack-pyprecice-deps-1804

python-bindings/.github/workflows/build-env.yml

Line 28 in 0d9b589

tags: precice/ci-spack-pyprecice-deps-1804

We should actually push to forks-docker-id/ci-spack-pyprecice-deps-1804 and use this image, instead.

[BenjaminRodenberg]

@ajaust how do you think should we proceed with the failing test for building spack? As explained in #117 this is a bigger issue. I would be fine with just merging and hoping that it works (otherwise we have to fix it). But we can also keep this PR open and wait until the issue is resolved.

[ajaust]

If you are fine with that, we can merge and keep this PR in mind so we know where the problem should be.

[BenjaminRodenberg]

Currently build spack is failing (as expected). See https://github.com/precice/python-bindings/runs/3308743649?check_suite_focus=true.

I just triggered building the environment manually via the workflow_dispatch. The job will take some time (https://github.com/precice/python-bindings/actions/runs/1122874035). As soon as the job has run through, the container should be updated and we can use it in the test. If we rerun the test, it should succeed.

[ajaust]

I am curious to see how that will work out. :)

[BenjaminRodenberg]

I've rebuilt the environment and the test fails now: https://github.com/precice/python-bindings/runs/3320630602?check_suite_focus=true. So there is a bug we have to fix.

[BenjaminRodenberg]

This PR seems to be fine, but #116 is problematic. See #121.