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

fix: Modify end_to_end.yml to be more specific about which gtfs-validator jar is used #1131

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 3, 2022

Conversation

bdferris-v2
Copy link
Collaborator

Per discussion in issue #1129, I think I ran into an edge-case where there are multiple jars in the main/build/libs directory (maybe from a previous build?) that caused the script to fail. Attempting to fix by being more specific about which of the :main project jars to use (hint: we want the shadow jar).

…jar should be used, as we think we've run into an edge-case where there are multiple jars in the main/build/libs directory (maybe from a previous build?) that caused the script to fail. See issue MobilityData#1129 for discussion.
@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLA assistant check
Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.

Copy link
Member

@barbeau barbeau left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

These changes LGTM, although the same pattern exists in end_to_end_big.yml and end_to_end_100.yml as well. I'd suggest we change all these occurrences to be consistent.

…use.

We think we've run into an edge-case where there are multiple jars in the main/build/libs directory (maybe from a previous build?) that caused the script to fail. See issue MobilityData#1129 for discussion.
@bdferris-v2
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@barbeau good call. Done.

Copy link
Member

@barbeau barbeau left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @bdferris-v2, LGTM!

The acceptance tests are still blocked by #1094, so if we want them to run before merge this PR would need to be merged after PR #1102.

@bdferris-v2
Copy link
Collaborator Author

All the end_to_end*.yml tests look to be passing, which I think is the most important thing to check here. So I propose to submit without waiting for #1102. I will do so this evening unless I hear objections.

@bdferris-v2
Copy link
Collaborator Author

But maybe you were instead pointing out that I won't be able to submit this PR until #1102 is in, regardless?

@barbeau
Copy link
Member

barbeau commented May 3, 2022

No objections here. I think the repo permissions allow merge even with failing/canceled tests.

@bdferris-v2 bdferris-v2 merged commit 99124b5 into MobilityData:master May 3, 2022
@bdferris-v2 bdferris-v2 deleted the issue/1129/end_to_end branch May 3, 2022 04:22
@maximearmstrong
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for this contribution @bdferris-v2 and @barbeau ! We didn’t get a chance to add this to the contribution guidelines yet, but can you make sure there is a review from one MobilityData staff before merging please? 🙂

cc @isabelle-dr

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.

None yet

5 participants