-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Base._ls(): may always return an empty list #178
Conversation
@hagenw locally tests with Artifactory are passing, but here it seems that it can no longer access the server. Any idea? |
There is a different when running locally or here in the CI as the CI uses the The error message of the failing test was:
My suspicision is that every time we try to access a file that does not exist it will be counted as a login failure. And as we have several CI jobs running in parallel, it might be that we reach the blocking threshold too early. To me it does not sound like a good design on the Artifactory side that a user gets block even she/he has a correct username/password login. I guess we need to check if there is a setting on the Artifactory server to change the behavior. If not, we might have to reduce the number of pipelines. Or group tests for error messages on missing data in a separate file and run this file only in a single CI job. |
Maybe there is also an error with the stored secret on Github. I will try to replace it with a new one. |
But isn't it strange we only encounter this problem now? |
Ok, thanks. |
I also encountered the problem when I tried to add tests for |
I replaced the secret on Github and re-started the CI jobs, but unfortunately the error stays the same. |
I tested a few more things and the username and API key seem still to be correctly set, but the error remains in the end:
Maybe we wait until next week to see if the error remains? |
ok |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files
|
As usual, waiting a few days helps to solve login issues. |
Co-authored-by: Hagen Wierstorf <hwierstorf@audeering.com>
* Base.ls(): always return * DOC: update * DOC: update comment * Update audbackend/core/backend/base.py Co-authored-by: Hagen Wierstorf <hwierstorf@audeering.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Hagen Wierstorf <hwierstorf@audeering.com>
* Base.ls(): always return * DOC: update * DOC: update comment * Update audbackend/core/backend/base.py Co-authored-by: Hagen Wierstorf <hwierstorf@audeering.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Hagen Wierstorf <hwierstorf@audeering.com>
So far the docstring of
Base._ls()
was saying:This might be overlooked by a developer, so here we simplify
_ls()
by not demanding to raise an error message or treat/
as a special case. Instead it is sufficient to return an empty list, even in the case that the path does not exist. The docstring now says:To avoid a breaking change, raising a file-not-found-error is now handled by
Base
, in the same way we already do it for the case thatpath
is not a sub-path.