-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
kn: merge to main #178
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
kn: merge to main #178
Conversation
* fix glibc version to 2.19 by using manylinux images. * fix aarch64 to not use `moutline-atomics` by using the same toolchain that K/N is using
…ough to composite builds
This reverts commit ab7851f.
kn: merge from main (again?)
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
| uses: ./.github/actions/setup-build | ||
| - name: Configure Docker Images | ||
| run: | | ||
| ./docker-images/build-images.sh linux-x64 linux-arm64 |
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.
note: @ianbotsf We are still using Docker for Linux CI, I will need to think about how we remove Docker later.
| private val EXPECTED_CREDENTIALS = Credentials("access_key_id", "secret_access_key", "session_token") | ||
|
|
||
| class CredentialsProviderTest : CrtTest() { | ||
| @Ignore // FIXME Enable when Kotlin/Native implementation is complete |
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.
note: we haven't implemented Native credentials providers with bindings to CRT (and probably never will?) since we have common implementations in smithy-kotlin
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.
Can you mention that in the comment please, unless it's documented somewhere else
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.
Done 👍
| { | ||
| "id": "5b6cf8f2-eff6-4def-a335-1de5052a810a", | ||
| "type": "feature", | ||
| "description": "Add support for Kotlin/Native" | ||
| } No newline at end of file |
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.
Nit: Link to public issue
| { | ||
| "id": "5b6cf8f2-eff6-4def-a335-1de5052a810a", | ||
| "type": "feature", | ||
| "description": "Add support for Kotlin/Native" | ||
| } No newline at end of file |
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.
Correctness: "requiresMinorVersionBump": true
| @Ignore // FIXME This test is broken since switching runSuspendingTest to runTest | ||
| @Test | ||
| fun testHttpGet() = runSuspendTest { | ||
| fun testHttpGet() = runTest { | ||
| testSimpleRequest("GET", "/get", 200) | ||
| testSimpleRequest("GET", "/post", 405) | ||
| testSimpleRequest("GET", "/put", 405) | ||
| testSimpleRequest("GET", "/delete", 405) | ||
| } |
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.
Question: What's the path to getting these ignored tests working again?
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.
We'll need to investigate why they no longer work after moving away from runSuspendingTest, I made a backlog task SDK-KT-774 if that works for you?
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.
Did you stop using runSuspendTest because it was basically a copy of runTest? It's a little concerning to leave that test disabled. Can you temporarily enable it by switching back to runSuspendTest or some other alternative. Unless it's related to something in our native implementation I think it should fine to use runSuspendTest for now.
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.
No. I replaced it because there was a TODO saying we should. runSuspendTest does not exist anymore. I just updated this to use runBlocking (which is what runSuspendTest used before). It works fine now
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.
Sounds good to me, thanks for capturing a backlog item.
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.
Actually it was fixed thanks to @0marperez question, I decided to use runBlocking and everything works now
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
1 similar comment
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
| @Ignore // FIXME This test is broken since switching runSuspendingTest to runTest | ||
| @Test | ||
| fun testHttpGet() = runSuspendTest { | ||
| fun testHttpGet() = runTest { | ||
| testSimpleRequest("GET", "/get", 200) | ||
| testSimpleRequest("GET", "/post", 405) | ||
| testSimpleRequest("GET", "/put", 405) | ||
| testSimpleRequest("GET", "/delete", 405) | ||
| } |
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.
Did you stop using runSuspendTest because it was basically a copy of runTest? It's a little concerning to leave that test disabled. Can you temporarily enable it by switching back to runSuspendTest or some other alternative. Unless it's related to something in our native implementation I think it should fine to use runSuspendTest for now.
|
Affected ArtifactsChanged in size
|



Issue #, if available:
Description of changes:
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.