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

sound: fix broken tests #496

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 25, 2023
Merged

sound: fix broken tests #496

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 25, 2023

Conversation

epilys
Copy link
Member

@epilys epilys commented Oct 24, 2023

Tests were not updated with changes in previous commits, so update them.

See #493 (comment)

@stefano-garzarella
Copy link
Member

stefano-garzarella commented Oct 24, 2023

LGTM, I just saw a drop in coverage, maybe related to #487 or #445 :

FAILED ../rust-vmm-ci/integration_tests/test_coverage.py::test_coverage - ValueError: Current code coverage (57.35%) deviates by -6.92% from the previous code coverage 50.43%.Current ...

@dorindabassey can you take a look at pipewire tests changes?

Copy link
Contributor

@dorindabassey dorindabassey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@aesteve-rh
Copy link
Contributor

just saw a drop in coverage

Maybe I read it wrong, but isn't it an increased coverage?

@stefano-garzarella
Copy link
Member

just saw a drop in coverage

Maybe I read it wrong, but isn't it an increased coverage?

Oooo, right! -6.92% confused me. We can update staging/coverage_config_x86_64.json (maybe in another PR).

@aesteve-rh
Copy link
Contributor

-6.92% confused me

Yeah, the - sign is unfortunate. Probably hardcoded in the message… Tbh, it doesn't make much sense to warn/fail if the coverage is increased, no? IMO, the coverage check should set the minimum target.

We can update staging/coverage_config_x86_64.json

I can send a quick PR :)

@stefano-garzarella
Copy link
Member

-6.92% confused me

Yeah, the - sign is unfortunate.

yeah!

Probably hardcoded in the message… Tbh, it doesn't make much sense to warn/fail if the coverage is increased, no? IMO, the coverage check should set the minimum target.

Maybe it's useful to remind us to update the file, otherwise if it grows and we don't update the file, then it decreases, we won't notice the difference.

We can update staging/coverage_config_x86_64.json

I can send a quick PR :)

Thanks!

@aesteve-rh aesteve-rh mentioned this pull request Oct 24, 2023
4 tasks
@aesteve-rh
Copy link
Contributor

Maybe it's useful to remind us to update the file, otherwise if it grows and we don't update the file, then it decreases, we won't notice the difference.

Right, but it may set the coverage bar higher for new crates compared to the ones already integrated. But I understand the reasoning, it is ok. Thanks for explaining :)

@stefano-garzarella
Copy link
Member

Maybe it's useful to remind us to update the file, otherwise if it grows and we don't update the file, then it decreases, we won't notice the difference.

Right, but it may set the coverage bar higher for new crates compared to the ones already integrated. But I understand the reasoning, it is ok. Thanks for explaining :)

This is true, but we are open to dropping it for good reasons. We use it more as a way to remind ourselves to update it ;-)

Tests were not updated with changes in previous commits, so update them.

Signed-off-by: Manos Pitsidianakis <manos.pitsidianakis@linaro.org>
@epilys
Copy link
Member Author

epilys commented Oct 24, 2023

Rebased

@vireshk vireshk merged commit 573e592 into rust-vmm:main Oct 25, 2023
2 checks passed
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.

6 participants