We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
On the main branch running the unit tests via our Make recipe works as expected and takes ~1 minute:
main
make pytest-unit
However, attempting to run the unit tests independently with pytest kicks off an ETL run, which should never happen, and takes a long time:
pytest
pytest test/unit
The unit tests that get run as part of our local pre-commit hook don't seem to have this problem. They use the command:
pre-commit
pytest --cov-fail-under=0 --doctest-modules src/pudl test/unit -m "not slow"
Even just telling pytest to report back the durations of the 20 longest tests or not to compile coverage doesn't exhibit the problem:
pytest --durations 20 test/unit pytest --no-cov test/uni
Could this be an unexpected side effect of our new default pytest / coverage configuration @jdangerx? From #3391?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
Describe the bug
On the
main
branch running the unit tests via our Make recipe works as expected and takes ~1 minute:make pytest-unit
However, attempting to run the unit tests independently with
pytest
kicks off an ETL run, which should never happen, and takes a long time:pytest test/unit
The unit tests that get run as part of our local
pre-commit
hook don't seem to have this problem. They use the command:pytest --cov-fail-under=0 --doctest-modules src/pudl test/unit -m "not slow"
Even just telling
pytest
to report back the durations of the 20 longest tests or not to compile coverage doesn't exhibit the problem:Could this be an unexpected side effect of our new default pytest / coverage configuration @jdangerx? From #3391?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: