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

BF: Don't discover directory as procedure #3793

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 18, 2019

Conversation

@bpoldrack
Copy link
Member

@bpoldrack bpoldrack commented Oct 17, 2019

Closes #3792

We used to discover a directory at the configured procedure location as an actual procedure based on its executable flag.

@codecov
Copy link

@codecov codecov bot commented Oct 17, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #3793 into master will increase coverage by 0.06%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3793      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   80.68%   80.75%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         273      273              
  Lines       35917    35918       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits        28981    29004      +23     
+ Misses       6936     6914      -22
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
datalad/interface/run_procedure.py 86.33% <100%> (+19.25%) ⬆️
datalad/interface/tests/test_run_procedure.py 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
datalad/downloaders/tests/test_http.py 58.08% <0%> (-2.21%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 4a7947b...53b1ac4. Read the comment docs.

kyleam
kyleam approved these changes Oct 17, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@kyleam kyleam left a comment

Thanks. Looks obviously correct.

I had the thought that it'd be a little more natural to filter out directories upstream and not pass them as the script_file argument to _guess_exec, but looking at the code the spot you chose does seem the most straightforward spot to tack this on.

This patch applies cleanly to 0.11.x, so it'd be good for it to go there. I'm going to push a rebased branch to scratch/bf-discover-procedures in order to trigger tests. That way, if you agree with this going to 0.11.x, hopefully you won't have to wait for another test cycle and can just reset to scratch/bf-discover-procedures and then do the merge into 0.11.x then master.

Here's the travis build triggered by that:
https://travis-ci.org/datalad/datalad/builds/599404967

@bpoldrack bpoldrack force-pushed the bf-discover-procedures branch from 997e64e to 53b1ac4 Oct 18, 2019
@bpoldrack bpoldrack changed the base branch from master to 0.11.x Oct 18, 2019
@bpoldrack
Copy link
Member Author

@bpoldrack bpoldrack commented Oct 18, 2019

Thanks, @kyleam

@bpoldrack
Copy link
Member Author

@bpoldrack bpoldrack commented Oct 18, 2019

And yes, I also initially thought it should be a different spot, but that's the way it's build.

@mih mih added this to to-be-categorized in Release 0.12 via automation Oct 18, 2019
@kyleam kyleam merged commit 53b1ac4 into datalad:0.11.x Oct 18, 2019
13 of 18 checks passed
@mih mih moved this from to-be-categorized to Blocker in Release 0.12 Oct 19, 2019
@mih mih moved this from Blocker to done in Release 0.12 Oct 19, 2019
@bpoldrack bpoldrack deleted the bf-discover-procedures branch Sep 2, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
No open projects
Release 0.12
  
done
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants