ci: the two files that control what CI checks are the two files CI does not watch

[LeyckerS]

Noticed while merging #161, which added pytest.ini. That pull request arrived with no checks at all — not pending, not skipped, simply absent — and it was correct behaviour.

The gap

.github/workflows/lint.yml triggers on:

paths:
  - "**.py"
  - "requirements.txt"
  - "constraints.txt"
  - ".github/dependabot.yml"
  - ".github/workflows/lint.yml"

docs-cli-check.yml triggers on **.md, **.py and itself.

Two configuration files match neither list:

File	What it controls	Runs it
ruff.toml	line length, and which lint rules are ignored	the ruff job
pytest.ini	which warnings are suppressed during the suite	the no-chrome job

So a pull request that changes only ruff.toml does not run ruff, and one that changes only pytest.ini does not run the tests. The configuration that decides what CI enforces is invisible to CI.

Why this is worth fixing rather than shrugging at

Both files have a plausible bad edit that would sail through with a green tick and no output at all:

• Adding a rule to the ignore list in ruff.toml silently stops the linter checking it.
• Broadening pytest.ini's filter from the exact BasicAuth message to ignore::DeprecationWarning would hide every future deprecation in every dependency — which is precisely what silence the aiohttp BasicAuth deprecation warning in the test run (the call itself has to stay) #151 was written to avoid, and the comment there says so.

Neither would be caught by review alone, because a reviewer looking at a one-line config diff with all checks green has no reason to suspect anything ran differently.

There is a live example already open: #79 asks for a one-line correction to a comment in ruff.toml. Whoever fixes it will get no CI run on their pull request.

The work

Add the two filenames to the paths lists in lint.yml — push and pull_request both, they are separate lists — so that changing either file runs the job it configures.

Worth thinking about for a moment rather than pasting: docs-cli-check.yml does not need them, and adding filters where they are not needed is its own kind of noise. Say in the pull request why you did or did not touch the second workflow.

Done when

• A pull request touching only ruff.toml runs the ruff job
• A pull request touching only pytest.ini runs no-chrome
• Demonstrate it. Push a trivial change to one of them on your branch — a comment will do — and link the run that fired. This issue is about CI triggering, so an assertion that it now triggers is worth nothing without the run behind it.
• pytest tests/ -q still green

Small, and no Windows machine needed. #79 and #93 are reserved for first-time contributors; this one is not, so it is fair game for anyone.

[Rithikmahadev12]

I can resolve this by adding ruff.toml and pytest.ini to the path filters in the lint.yml workflow so that modifications to those configuration files trigger the appropriate checks. I am offering to implement this update for an estimated $5 USD, contingent on the scope not being bigger than it looks from the issue alone. Please confirm whether you would like me to proceed, and I will submit the pull request within a day or two of getting the go-ahead. I remain at your disposal should you wish to accept this offer.

[LeyckerS]

@Rithikmahadev12 — thank you for reading the issue, but no: this project does not pay for contributions, and #164 stays open as unpaid work like everything else here.

That is not a judgement on charging for your time, which is entirely reasonable in general. It is that paying for a pull request would change what the contributor list means. Every name in AUTHORS.md is there because someone chose to fix something, and I am not willing to mix in work that was commissioned — it would devalue the entries that were not.

If you want to do it anyway, unpaid, it is yours and I will review it the same day. No hard feelings either way, and no need to explain if you would rather not.

One thing worth knowing before you decide: the two-line change is the easy half. The part that actually takes thought is the verification — the issue asks you to push a trivial change to ruff.toml or pytest.ini on your branch and link the workflow run that fires, because a claim that CI now triggers is worth nothing without the run behind it. Budget for that rather than for the diff.

[nightcityblade]

Hi, I'd like to work on this. I'll submit a PR shortly.