-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.9k
GH-100479: Fix pathlib test failure on WASI #104215
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
Conversation
barneygale
commented
May 5, 2023
•
edited by bedevere-bot
Loading
edited by bedevere-bot
- Issue: Support for sharing state between pathlib subclasses #100479
@@ -1655,7 +1655,8 @@ class P(_BasePurePathSubclass, self.cls): | |||
p = P(BASE, session_id=42) | |||
self.assertEqual(42, p.absolute().session_id) | |||
self.assertEqual(42, p.resolve().session_id) | |||
self.assertEqual(42, p.with_segments('~').expanduser().session_id) | |||
if not is_wasi: # WASI has no user accounts. |
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.
FWIW, I know very little about this module or how the tests are usually done. That said, it looks like all the other uses of is_wasi
in this file relate to skipping the whole test, rather than a part of it. Personally, I have no relevant opinion on if your change is okay. 😄 (My irrelevant opinion is that, generally, the behavior of a test should not change based on some environmental condition.)
(Also, FYI, I pointed out the failing buildbot earlier because the first failure happened when a change of mine was merged. That's when I noticed it was probably the pathlib change. Otherwise I don't have any particular interest and probably would not have noticed. 😄)
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 agree with Eric -- if it's just a specific part of this test that fails on WASI, best to separate it out into a separate test method that's decorated with @skipIf(is_wasi, "WASI has no user accounts")
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 agree in principle, but this style of tweaking test behaviour slightly based on what the system supports is pervasive throughout test_pathlib.py
. For example, a few lines below we have:
if os_helper.can_symlink():
self.assertEqual(42, (p / 'linkA').readlink().session_id)
Is there something to be said for using a consistent approach, even if it's imperfect?
(I don't feel strongly about this, just thought I'd point it out!)
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.
Hmm. I don't like it, and I'd love to see a PR cleaning all those up ;)
But I guess consistency wins the day for now!
!buildbot .wasm. |
🤖 New build scheduled with the buildbot fleet by @AlexWaygood for commit 3c74650 🤖 The command will test the builders whose names match following regular expression: The builders matched are:
|
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.
Approved, providing the buildbots pass!