selftests: drop job-api test variant that may exceed sqlite3's own limits #6074
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The number based naming of the job-api related suites do not provide clear information on what it is about. This uses a more meaningful name for them. Signed-off-by: Cleber Rosa <[email protected]>
…mits The sqlite3 module (and actually, even the non-python binary with the same name), have "interesting" limitations when it comes to the database path. When the test that creates the journal file, and checks for it, runs as part of an RPM build, the extra directories (/buildir/...) exceed the path size limit. While it would be possible to check if the "logdir" path, plus the name of the journal database path, would eventually exceed the sqlite3 limits, this logic would be exclusive for one test variant. IMO it does not justify adding such logic to keep a test that has considerably low value. Signed-off-by: Cleber Rosa <[email protected]>
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #6074 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 54.47% 54.32% -0.16%
==========================================
Files 202 202
Lines 21892 21892
==========================================
- Hits 11925 11892 -33
- Misses 9967 10000 +33 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
Hi @clebergnu, can you please add a reference to the failure? I wasn't able to find any CI failure which would be caused by sqlite3 limitations. Thank you. |
|
/packit copr-build |
|
This is one example of the limitation causing a failure during an RPM build: |
During RPM builds on Fedora 42 (really rawhide at this time), the RPM package dependency system provides MarkupSafe > 3.0.0 (currently 3.0.2). So, we remove the pinning, or else, the build would fail due to a version requirement conflict. Signed-off-by: Cleber Rosa <[email protected]>
richtja
requested changes
Nov 28, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @clebergnu, thank you for provided example, the previous changes LGTM. But I think that the last commit b80f298 is not related to this PR, am I right?
It's not... but it was necessary to include it to prove that the CI can be fixed by this (inclusive). I can send them in separate PRs, but, I would advise against it because we'd still have CI failures on both cases. |
richtja
approved these changes
Dec 2, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The sqlite3 module (and actually, even the non-python binary with the same name), have "interesting" limitations when it comes to the database path.
When the test that creates the journal file, and checks for it, runs as part of an RPM build, the extra directories (/buildir/...) exceed the path size limit.
While it would be possible to check if the "logdir" path, plus the name of the journal database path, would eventually exceed the sqlite3 limits, this logic would be exclusive for one test variant.
IMO it does not justify adding such logic to keep a test that has considerably low value.