-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 246
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
Bump to 7.2.0 #405
Bump to 7.2.0 #405
Conversation
8d66e71
to
0ac2822
Compare
@@ -17,7 +17,6 @@ | |||
require_relative "postgis/oid/spatial" | |||
require_relative "postgis/oid/date_time" | |||
require_relative "postgis/type" # has to be after oid/* | |||
require_relative "postgis/create_connection" |
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.
This is the only actual needed change according to the current test suite, but I'm trying with the whole rails test suite to be sure we do not miss anything
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ require "rake/testtask" | |||
require_relative "test/rake_helper" | |||
|
|||
task default: [:test] | |||
task test: "test:postgis" | |||
task test: "test:all" |
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.
i think the whole suite is flaky.
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.
I'll look at it. I have good experience with this suite now that I maintain the CRDB adapter. It usually is flaky due to some tests modifying the db. Which they should not do if they are correctly changed for our use case. Do you have any further information?
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.
Just this : #378
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.
Thx, I plan on excluding using minitest-exclude
and opening an issue for excluded tests
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.
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.
Now we only have Postgis basic tests flaky. If one of you has time to look into it it would be much appreciated. Otherwise maybe we can skip them for now and make this or top priority issue, just so we can release this ?
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.
@BuonOmo so just to make sure I'm clear, there's a few postgis
tests that were working and are now flakey? I can try to work through some of them. Is it only in the CI?
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.
I noticed some of the tests failures are order related.
notes here: #405 (comment)
@@ -99,20 +99,20 @@ def test_joined_spatial_attribute | |||
private | |||
|
|||
def create_foo | |||
Foo.connection.create_table :foos, force: true do |t| | |||
Foo.lease_connection.create_table :foos, force: true do |t| |
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.
these test case work in isolation
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.
What do you mean?
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.
I mean if you run any test that break alone, it works.
Something wrong with CI that we should fix.
Checkout https://github.com/nektos/act if you want to have your own github runner locally.
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.
Thanks for act, I am still unsure about your first point though..
I've got to something more specific: |
Please have a look at #412 . Existing tests are passing, now. |
* load current default value as is instead of making rgeo produce one. produced default is not memoized by rgeo. * fix rubocop layout warning on basic_test.rb * avoid using whole ar-testcase which causes trouble when running test:postgis * ensure connection is stablished test was failing when run in isolation
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.
Hello, thanks for this work here
I randomly ran into a couple of typos, one is not related to this PR but there was a change close enough
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.
Should we keep the excludes files ?
About these ignore files: are they working as temporary to reduce the noise while this work is done (like a skip), are they mostly definitive like for unnecessary tests or tests that do not apply in the context of PostGIS or are they a mix of both? I am asking because I've made a few adjustments to make the ignored test appear as skipped to have an idea of the size of the problem and I wouldn't mind sharing that if it appears useful to get over of what is missing. |
@formigarafa I think they would be a mix of both. I haven't checked them individually besides just seeing that they were failing.
This looks like a change for the gem responsible of ignoring tests ? Anyway, feel free to submit this! |
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.
Thank you for the work on this everyone! @BuonOmo would you like me to handle creating a stable branch for the old version and bumping/releasing this?
@keithdoggett lets go! Thank you :) I'll take a look at the new PR #415 soon, but I guess we could already push this, and have a patch release for rake task fix |
v10.0.0 is released. |
Closes #403
Closes #395