-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
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
Experiment with testing package distro #78
Conversation
9216cb3
to
cb136e9
Compare
#curl -L -o $HOME/packages.tar.gz ${{ github.event.inputs.pkgarchiveurl || inputs.pkgarchiveurl }} | ||
#ls -l $HOME/packages.tar.gz | ||
#shasum -a 256 $HOME/packages.tar.gz | ||
## TODO: also download and test checksum??? | ||
_tools/download_packages.py */meta.json |
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.
Not sure how to best "download packages":
- using
download_packages.py
has the advantage that we really test the packages in the commit this action runs on - downloading a
packages.tar.gz
from a given ensures we really test the tarball we later offer to users; but it requires a download URL for such a package
In practice, I envision that this is run from either ...
- a PR workflow (to test whether a PR is ready to be merged),
- upon a
push
to themain
branch (to test apackages.tar.gz
we just assembled), - as part of a scheduled cron job, to test for regressions introduced in GAP
master
For the first scenario, it makes sense to use download_packages.py
; for the other two scenarios, I'd say the second approach makes more sense. So perhaps both should be supported, by turning the pkgarchiveurl
into an optional argument?
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
5ac60d3
to
846720d
Compare
xmod-2.85 and kan-1.34 now released and (hopefully) no longer failing. (Just commented out a few lines in the tests where output differed slightly between gap4r11 and gapdev.) |
d400e22
to
93a9ddc
Compare
kan-1.34 indeed passes its tests now, thank you! But xmod-2.85 still has diffs, see this log |
The problem test, tst/extra/d24.tst, works for me with the latest gapdev. However the log you sent shows 8 versions of packages more recent than the ones installed on my system. So it appears that one of these packages is causing the failure. I have, for now, moved d24.tst to tst/failing; released xmod-2.86; and hope there are no further problems. |
Status of "failing" package tests: I've moved this overview to an issue of its own, so that I can merge this PR.