Skip to content

Conversation

@teojgo
Copy link
Contributor

@teojgo teojgo commented Nov 17, 2020

  • Add the corresponding documentation.

  • Add unittests.

Fixes #1395

* Add the corresponding documentation.

* Add unittests.
@teojgo teojgo added this to the ReFrame sprint 20.17 milestone Nov 17, 2020
@teojgo teojgo requested review from ekouts and vkarak November 17, 2020 16:44
@teojgo teojgo self-assigned this Nov 17, 2020
@pep8speaks
Copy link

pep8speaks commented Nov 17, 2020

Hello @teojgo, Thank you for updating!

Cheers! There are no PEP8 issues in this Pull Request!Do see the ReFrame Coding Style Guide

Comment last updated at 2020-11-23 19:08:33 UTC

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Nov 17, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #1606 (930904b) into master (9354331) will decrease coverage by 0.24%.
The diff coverage is 30.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1606      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   87.91%   87.66%   -0.25%     
==========================================
  Files          44       44              
  Lines        7258     7283      +25     
==========================================
+ Hits         6381     6385       +4     
- Misses        877      898      +21     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
reframe/frontend/cli.py 76.68% <15.78%> (-2.83%) ⬇️
reframe/core/modules.py 59.45% <54.54%> (-0.55%) ⬇️

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 9354331...930904b. Read the comment docs.

@vkarak
Copy link
Contributor

vkarak commented Nov 18, 2020

Also I would expect the actions using the different modules systems to fail 🤔

Copy link
Contributor

@ekouts ekouts left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

Copy link
Contributor

@vkarak vkarak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have minor comments except that I don't understand why it is correct to exit with 1 in the test_unuse_module_path() test.

@vkarak vkarak changed the title [feat] Support (un)using a module path before execution [feat] Add command-line option to manipulate the module path before executing any tests Nov 23, 2020
@vkarak vkarak merged commit d164f0b into reframe-hpc:master Nov 23, 2020
@teojgo teojgo deleted the feat/use_unuse_path branch November 25, 2020 14:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add a command line option to use or unuse module paths

5 participants