-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 135
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
xPackage: updated conditional statement to -ne to provide correct verbose output (fixes #446) #447
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #447 +/- ##
===================================
Coverage 72% 72%
===================================
Files 27 27
Lines 4031 4031
Branches 4 4
===================================
Hits 2922 2922
Misses 1105 1105
Partials 4 4 |
@johlju I have tried closing and reopening the PR in hopes of resolving the error due to the integration tests in the xArchive resource, specifically the 'MSFT_xArchive.Integration.Tests' and 'MSFT_xArchive.EndToEnd.Tests' but unable to do so. I would appreciate help with these errors as they do not pertain to the change I have made in my pull request. Thank you in advance for your help. |
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.
Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r2.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved
I've reviewed this change. The suggested changes look good to me, and the failing Integration tests look completely unrelated to this change. Furthermore, all Integration and Unit that tests related to code in MSFT_xPackageResource are still passing. I recommend that this PR be allowed to be merged. |
Labeling this pull request (PR) as abandoned since it has gone 14 days or more since the last update. An abandoned PR can be continued by another contributor. The abandoned label will be removed if work on this PR is taken up again. |
Hi @harnsin . Sorry for the extremely late responses on this. The failures with continuous integration should be resolved now. Can you rebase this PR and submit again? Hopefully it will pass and we can get this checked in. Thanks! |
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.
Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r6.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved
Should be good to go @mhendric once the AppVeyor finishes. Great stuff - love how these are all getting knocked off! |
Looks like this one may actually be failing due to this change (although I'm not yet sure how). I'm going to resolve conflicts and kick of another build. If this fails again, we'll need to troubleshoot
|
Hmmmmm. The next CI run failed again, but in a different test. The error is similar though; it was unable to connect to GitHub for some reason. Sounds like something we may want to track in an attempt to make tests in this module for resilient. I can't see how the below error is related to this particular change, but I would really like to see a successful CI run before we check this in. Thoughts?
|
...hey and look at that, the tests passed this time! Better merge before it changes its mind :). |
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.
Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r4, 1 of 1 files at r8.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved
@mhendric Must have been a temporary glitch in AppVeyor? I have not seen that error before, but glitches happens now and again (not often). |
Yeah, I think it was a temporary glitch. Hopefully whatever comes out of #505 will make it less likely for that to happen in the future. |
Pull Request (PR) description
Fixes conditional statement for verbose output specifically on Line 793 in the xPackage resource to fix bug found while debugging.
This Pull Request (PR) fixes the following issues
Task list
Entry should say what was changed, and how that affects users (if applicable).
and comment-based help.
This change is