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

Update Yoga.cpp #1189

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

Update Yoga.cpp #1189

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

jacobp100
Copy link

Just to see test results on CI

@jacobp100
Copy link
Author

@cortinico are you able to give me approval to run the workflows?

@NickGerleman
Copy link
Contributor

@cortinico are you able to give me approval to run the workflows?

I started this off. But the CI run in OSS doesn’t run the unit tests. I’m going to prioritize finally getting the GTest UTs running in OSS again before I take holiday off after the end of this week.

@NickGerleman
Copy link
Contributor

I will pull this so I can report UT results.

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

@NickGerleman has imported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator.

@NickGerleman
Copy link
Contributor

It looks like this change is passing all UTs 👍

@NickGerleman
Copy link
Contributor

It's... not the properly debuggable C++ build just yet, but FYI @jacobp100 @intergalacticspacehighway that tests generated from the fixtures should now be run in the "JavaScript / Test" workflows. Still working to get the rest of the suite enabled and a better local experience.

@NickGerleman
Copy link
Contributor

The test failure being shown now is because the automatically merged output with this change and main has both your fix, and the one from @intergalacticspacehighway, doing the same thing I think.

@NickGerleman
Copy link
Contributor

C++ UTs are now running in OSS 👍

Should be relatively easy to run and debug locally now too as well.

@NickGerleman
Copy link
Contributor

Got around to removing the gap-specific hack in #1380

Note that we do want to do this at the point of the last element, instead of the first, since we use betweenMainDim for positioning, and will otherwise incorrectly position the child after the first.

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.

3 participants