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

Release tarball for urllib3-1.9 is missing files required to run tests #440

Closed
kepstin opened this issue Aug 6, 2014 · 6 comments
Closed

Comments

@kepstin
Copy link

kepstin commented Aug 6, 2014

The initial thing that I noticed is that the file tests/__init__.py is missing; this is causing tests to fail when running them from the release tarball, with fun uninformative errors like:

======================================================================
ERROR: Failure: ValueError (Attempted relative import in non-package)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/nose/loader.py", line 414, in loadTestsFromName
    addr.filename, addr.module)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/nose/importer.py", line 47, in importFromPath
    return self.importFromDir(dir_path, fqname)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/nose/importer.py", line 94, in importFromDir
    mod = load_module(part_fqname, fh, filename, desc)
  File "/var/tmp/paludis/build/dev-python-urllib3-1.9/work/PYTHON_ABIS/2.7/urllib3-1.9/test/test_util.py", line 24, in <module>
    from . import clear_warnings
ValueError: Attempted relative import in non-package

While I was looking into this, I noticed that the entire contrib and with_dummyserver directories are missing from the release tarball as well.

@kepstin kepstin changed the title Release tarball for urllib3-1.9 is missing the file test/__init__.py Release tarball for urllib3-1.9 is missing files required to run tests Aug 6, 2014
@shazow
Copy link
Member

shazow commented Aug 6, 2014

Ah that's no good, thanks for catching that.

Any ideas why that's happening?

The MANIFEST.in syntax is all magic to me, but I'm not seeing why those things might get excluded.

@shazow shazow closed this as completed in dacce4e Aug 6, 2014
@shazow
Copy link
Member

shazow commented Aug 6, 2014

Can you confirm that the tarball generated from the latest master is fixed? If so, I'll push out v1.9.1 :)

shazow added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 6, 2014
@kepstin
Copy link
Author

kepstin commented Aug 6, 2014

I think all the test files are present in the tarball made with python setup.py sdist now, but I'm not entirely sure.

I'm still getting some test failures with connection timeouts, but that's probably a separate issue. I'm still looking into it, might be something with my environment.

@shazow
Copy link
Member

shazow commented Aug 6, 2014

Make sure you have the right version of tornado, as defined in
dev-requirements.txt.

Running make test should do the trick.
On Aug 6, 2014 1:29 PM, "Calvin Walton" notifications@github.com wrote:

I think all the test files are present in the tarball made with python
setup.py sdist now, but I'm not entirely sure.

I'm still getting some test failures with connection timeouts, but that's
probably a separate issue. I'm still looking into it, might be something
with my environment.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#440 (comment).

@kepstin
Copy link
Author

kepstin commented Aug 6, 2014

I was hoping to test with system packages for dependencies, since I'm currently building a system package for the urllib3 library - using different versions of packages e.g. in a virtualenv doesn't really say whether the installed package is going to work correctly.

But at the moment, I only have tornado-3.2.2 available (and downgrading the system tornado for tests could be disruptive to other packages), so I guess I'm going to have to disable tests here :/ oh, well.

@shazow
Copy link
Member

shazow commented Aug 6, 2014

Makes sense.

Unfortunately we found various versions of Tornado to be flakey with our tests. If you have any ideas why or how they could be improved, it would be very appreciated. :)

Meanwhile, you can enjoy this vaguely related thread: #361

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants