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

Allow to skip PostgreSQL backend dependent tests at runtime #51910

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 21, 2023

Conversation

strk
Copy link
Contributor

@strk strk commented Feb 17, 2023

Allows users to define a QGIS_PGTEST_DB_SKIP environment variable to skip tests requiring the test postgresql database to be run.

This is a spin-off from #51891 in response to @nyalldawson request expressed in #51891 (comment)

Can be used by tests to declare their need for a qgis test db
and allows users to skip them by defining a QGIS_PGTEST_DB_SKIP
environment variable
@strk strk added the testsuite Issue related to testsuite label Feb 17, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 3.30.0 milestone Feb 17, 2023
@strk
Copy link
Contributor Author

strk commented Feb 17, 2023

CI is failing due to a bug in the workflow itself, see https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2023-February/065542.html

@strk
Copy link
Contributor Author

strk commented Feb 17, 2023

I've filed #51917 as a spinoff of this one

@@ -408,7 +408,9 @@ jobs:
path: qgis_test_report

clang-tidy:
if: github.event_name == 'pull_request'
#if: github.event_name == 'pull_request'
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can you back out this change please?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can, but it was suggested by the "clang-tidy" test author to do it beause as reported in #51917 the test is broken and would then make CI red and this PR unmergeable. See https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2023-February/065543.html

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

\cc @troopa81

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Depending on how it's configured, it might still be possible to merge PRs with failing tests. Given the amount of issues with the test suite, I suspect it is.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've created a spinoff of this PR as #51935 to just contain this commit. I would wait for that to be merged before updating this PR as updating this PR would have no other effect than triggering a new CI run that's known to fail ( as you can see already in the history of this PR: https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/actions/runs/4203324613/jobs/7294511888 )

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Depending on how it's configured, it might still be possible to merge PRs with failing tests. Given the amount of issues with the test suite, I suspect it is.

Possibly, but I've heard more than once that developers don't even consider reviewing PRs until they have a green CI icon near them, and indeed this PR only got a review AFTER I pushed the commit disabling the broken test, which I did AFTER asking for help on the mailing list and receiving the suggestion to do the disabling here in order to "get the PR merged".

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Given the observation you made about wanting to keep the clang-tidy test I've removed that commit from this PR. Can I get your approval on it now ? The CI run will fail, and I'm not even sure why github is running it again (maybe because master branch changed from the last time the code was checked)

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants