Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 33 commits into from
Nov 4, 2024
Merged

Bump to 7.2.0 #405

merged 33 commits into from
Nov 4, 2024

Conversation

BuonOmo
Copy link
Member

@BuonOmo BuonOmo commented Sep 4, 2024

Closes #403
Closes #395

@BuonOmo BuonOmo marked this pull request as ready for review September 4, 2024 12:10
@BuonOmo BuonOmo force-pushed the bump-7-2 branch 4 times, most recently from 8d66e71 to 0ac2822 Compare September 4, 2024 12:19
@BuonOmo BuonOmo changed the title Bump 7 2 Bump to 7.2.0 Sep 4, 2024
@@ -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"
Copy link
Member Author

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"
Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link
Member Author

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?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just this : #378

Copy link
Member Author

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

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@BuonOmo yeah I hadn't figured out how to replicate the exclusions like in the CRDB adapter, but we definitely need that here since some are failing (which is expected). But to @seuros 's point that's why I just left the postgis tests for now.

Copy link
Member Author

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 ?

Copy link
Member

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?

Copy link
Contributor

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)

activerecord-postgis-adapter.gemspec Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -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|
Copy link
Contributor

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

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What do you mean?

Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link
Member Author

@BuonOmo BuonOmo Sep 5, 2024

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..

@formigarafa
Copy link
Contributor

I've got to something more specific:
BasicTest#test_save_and_load_point fails when it runs after BasicTest#test_spatial_factory_attrs_parsing.

@formigarafa
Copy link
Contributor

formigarafa commented Oct 14, 2024

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
Copy link
Contributor

@tagliala tagliala left a 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

test/cases/ddl_test.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/test_helper.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
formigarafa and others added 3 commits October 17, 2024 09:57
Co-authored-by: Geremia Taglialatela <tagliala@users.noreply.github.com>
@BuonOmo BuonOmo marked this pull request as ready for review October 17, 2024 08:37
Copy link
Contributor

@seuros seuros left a 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 ?

@BuonOmo
Copy link
Member Author

BuonOmo commented Oct 17, 2024

@seuros I'm not sure I get you. Yes we should keep the files I added, they correspond to failing tests! And let's track them in the related issue #378.

@seuros seuros self-requested a review October 17, 2024 13:20
@formigarafa
Copy link
Contributor

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.

@BuonOmo
Copy link
Member Author

BuonOmo commented Oct 25, 2024

@formigarafa I think they would be a mix of both. I haven't checked them individually besides just seeing that they were failing.

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.

This looks like a change for the gem responsible of ignoring tests ? Anyway, feel free to submit this!

Copy link
Member

@keithdoggett keithdoggett left a 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?

@BuonOmo
Copy link
Member Author

BuonOmo commented Nov 1, 2024

@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

@keithdoggett keithdoggett merged commit 1290093 into master Nov 4, 2024
16 checks passed
@keithdoggett keithdoggett deleted the bump-7-2 branch November 4, 2024 20:30
@keithdoggett
Copy link
Member

v10.0.0 is released. 9.0-stable branch also up if anyone wants to build directly from git for AR7.1. Thanks everyone!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Inquiry on Rails 7.2 Support Effort
7 participants