-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
*BSD unit tests #4269
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
*BSD unit tests #4269
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4269 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 81.56% 81.20% -0.37%
==========================================
Files 352 352
Lines 83601 83601
==========================================
- Hits 68193 67891 -302
- Misses 15408 15710 +302
|
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ | |||
# minversion = 4.0 | |||
skip_missing_interpreters = true | |||
# envlist = default when doing 'tox' | |||
envlist = py{37,38,39,310,311,312}-{linux,bsd,windows}-non_root | |||
envlist = py{37,38,39,310,311,312}-{linux,bsd,windows}-{non_root,root} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we really want this?
I think it would be nice that simply doing tox
with no parameter actually ran the tests. The current default would only run non-root tests which is to me fine. It's arguable it could be root tests, but I don't think it needs both.
That being said, it's currently unusable and fails miserably due to tox-dev/tox#3153. I'm slowly growing tired of tox.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like to type tox
without specifying anything, then go and do something else. root
used to be in envlist
, that is why I changed it back in this PR. I don't have strong arguments to add it back, but I find this useful.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't really mind.
I personally only use ./run_tests
anyways when working on the core, because those tests go much faster than the whole suite.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@p-l- your call!
On NetBSD 10, all unit tests pass. |
807657a
to
b8ea9e8
Compare
On OpenBSD 7.5, tests also pass, yet some randomly fail on my test VM. @bluhm do you have time to confirm that everything is OK on OpenBSD before we release v2.6.0? |
This PR makes sure that all unit tests pass on *BSD.