Skip to content
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

GH-100479: Fix pathlib test failure on WASI #104215

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 7, 2023

Conversation

barneygale
Copy link
Contributor

@barneygale barneygale commented May 5, 2023

@@ -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.
Copy link
Member

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. 😄)

Copy link
Member

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")

Copy link
Contributor Author

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!)

Copy link
Member

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!

@AlexWaygood
Copy link
Member

!buildbot .wasm.

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

🤖 New build scheduled with the buildbot fleet by @AlexWaygood for commit 3c74650 🤖

The command will test the builders whose names match following regular expression: .*wasm.*

The builders matched are:

  • wasm32-wasi PR
  • wasm32-emscripten browser (dynamic linking, no tests) PR
  • wasm32-emscripten node (dynamic linking) PR
  • wasm32-emscripten node (pthreads) PR

Copy link
Member

@AlexWaygood AlexWaygood left a 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!

@AlexWaygood AlexWaygood merged commit 60f5884 into python:main May 7, 2023
28 checks passed
jbower-fb pushed a commit to jbower-fb/cpython-jbowerfb that referenced this pull request May 8, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
skip news tests Tests in the Lib/test dir topic-pathlib
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants