Micromamba + cache full example

Hi, I’m trying to get the absolute fastest times, especially on windows. I see that over at mamba, micromamba is soon going to support windows soon (link) and support for installing form files at some point (https://github.com/TheSnakePit/mamba/issues/461). It would be really cool to be able to use this action + cache + micromamba for what I assume is going to be blazing fast installs. Once they get windows working (or maybe before) it would be great to get support and a full example of that combination here.

I would imagine this would look something like this:

     - name: Cache conda/mamba
        uses: actions/cache@v2
        env:
          CACHE_NUMBER: 0
        with:
          path: ~/conda_pkgs_dir
          key: conda-${{ runner.os }}-${{ env.CACHE_NUMBER }}-${{ hashFiles('test-env.yml') }}

      - name: Setup micromamba
        uses: goanpeca/setup-miniconda@v1
        with:
          channels: conda-forge
          activate-environment: test
          micromamba-version: "*"
          use-only-tar-bz2: true  # requried for caching
          environment-file: test-env.yml

      - name: Show conda environment
        shell: bash -l {0}
        run: |
          micromamba list

Hopefully this would the first run download and install micromamba and then use micromamba to install the test environment using test-env.yml.

Subsequent runs would then use micromamba from the cache (i.e. no need to re-download and re-install micromamba since it’s a single file) and just activate/update the test env.

[goanpeca]

That makes sense. So if I want the fastest installs, would the following be my best bet:

Yes, but it may depend on the other items I mentioned before:

• Time it takes to download
• Time it takes to zip the package cache
• Time it takes to unzip it,

Depending on how small/big your env is, it might be worth to cache, or it may not be worth it. And I do not have a rule of thumb… 🤷

[adriangb]

Makes sense, I’ll have to test both ways!