-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 675
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
Specify app user data path for testbed on Windows #2235
Conversation
4b6faa8
to
716d5e7
Compare
716d5e7
to
9391b15
Compare
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.
Conceptually, this all makes sense.
My only hesitation on approving and merging is that I can't make sense of the example provided for the "proof it works" case. The testbed tests have all been marked as failed... but with no test failure or coverage problems.
I'm presuming this is an artefact of rewriting history, and you manually added a "return 1" to the test case or something?
However, even then - only Windows and Linux have presented app data artefacts after the build - iOS, Linux and macOS have no app data. I can't tell if this is a side effect of the $HOME
changes, or an artefact of how the test was made to fail.
As for whether these artefacts are useful - they're generally only useful if a test fails.
The app data is particularly useful for the canvas tests, which generate images of the appearance of the canvas when they fail. This was essential when developing those tests, because we were getting failures caused because the rendering of the canvas wasn't pixel-perfect the same with desktop machines (for any number of reasons). Exfiltrating the app data gives us the actual output under test conditions, which we can compare with local output and work out if there's an actual problem, or just a sub pixel variation caused by some local test condition.
The logs are there mostly for additional debugging when the failure is for Briefcase failures - those don't normally happen, but when they do, it's useful to know the exact machine state when the failure occurred. There's an argument to be made that we should always be running with --log
, and then uploading all the artefacts if a failure occurs, in case there's something else going on.
That's correct; I just forced the testing step to fail after the tests completed.
I was confused by this as well but is also why I included a link to a recent run before this change that also failed wit the same missing artefacts. I wasn't sure if these directories were wrong....or if the tests never produced data on those platforms. |
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.
Heh... ok, I've found the source of the two outputs.
The Windows one is a known problem. The app data is a set of images that can't be reliably cleaned up because of Python.net retaining open file references. The "forced fail" means we see the mess that was left.
The GTK app data is some transient storage from the webview test. Again, the forced fail means we see the mess; these files would be included if there was a canvas or image failure, but they'd normally of no significance.
So - looks like you're right that nothing has changed. The artificial nature of the test was just surfacing things we wouldn't normally see.
Changes
Notes
adb
command...it's not even really clear to me how valuable this data is...PR Checklist: