-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 84
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
[RHELC-1131, RHELC-1234] Refactor logger to not require root #1029
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1029 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 94.33% 94.26% -0.07%
==========================================
Files 47 47
Lines 4552 4553 +1
Branches 811 815 +4
==========================================
- Hits 4294 4292 -2
- Misses 182 183 +1
- Partials 76 78 +2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
55700f0
to
f20777c
Compare
/packit test --labels tier0 |
f20777c
to
93ac888
Compare
/packit test --labels tier0 |
1 similar comment
/packit test --labels tier0 |
tests/integration/tier0/non-destructive/basic-sanity-checks/test_basic_sanity_checks.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
/packit test --labels tier0 |
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.
Looks good. Only a few comments & suggestions.
@r0x0d addressed all review comments! |
/packit test --labels tier0 |
1 similar comment
/packit test --labels tier0 |
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.
Looks good to me! Thanks for applying the suggestions.
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.
Looks good to me! Thanks for applying the suggestions.
Have not tested it under a VM yet.
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.
Do we test what happens when we log messages beyond the buffer's capacity?
@jochapma Yes! I do that here |
@r0x0d I have tested it in a VM and the buffer works. It outputs the command used into the logfile |
…st_basic_sanity_checks.py Co-authored-by: Daniel Diblik <8378124+danmyway@users.noreply.github.com>
bcfd4ea
to
a4ebdb0
Compare
/packit test --labels tier0 |
Code suggestion applied; Tests passing
Since of merging oamg#1029 we get an issue with unit tests that causes a lot of strange errors to occur. Likely due to a stream not being closed correctly. This aims to either fix or mitigate this from occuring during test runs as it should not appear in convert2rhel by itself.
Since of merging oamg#1029 we get an issue with unit tests that causes a lot of strange errors to occur. Likely due to a stream not being closed correctly. This aims to either fix or mitigate this from occuring during test runs as it should not appear in convert2rhel by itself.
Since of merging #1029 we get an issue with unit tests that causes a lot of strange errors to occur. Likely due to a stream not being closed correctly. This aims to either fix or mitigate this from occuring during test runs as it should not appear in convert2rhel by itself.
Since of merging oamg#1029 we get an issue with unit tests that causes a lot of strange errors to occur. Likely due to a stream not being closed correctly. This aims to either fix or mitigate this from occuring during test runs as it should not appear in convert2rhel by itself.
To do
In short of the changes:
Jira Issues:
Checklist
[RHELC-]
is part of the PR titleRelease Pending
if relevant