-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 619
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
fix: disable life support for nearlib test #7667
Conversation
What this test is intended to do is to spawn a local neard node and to run near-api-js tests against that. The purpose is to detect unintentional changes to near public API. We have disabled actually running the test a while ago, and today the build broke b/c api-js moved from yarn to pnpm. I think at this it's safe to kill this infra completely, as we weren't running it for a while. It would of course be nice to have some in-repo tests covering public JSON API, but I think we are currently server well-enough by betanet and testnet anyway. Testing public APIs via running tests of downstream projects upstream is clearly a wrong way to do that!
988f66b
to
e04cf94
Compare
@morgsmccauley (random person from near-api-js), how is near-api-js is tested? Specifically, when running the tests in CI, do you also run the node, or is it fully mocked? |
@matklad it uses |
Thanks! So this means that, if we do break our APIs, we'll notice this at least when we hit testnet. This makes me confident that we are somewhat covered here. |
What this test is intended to do is to spawn a local neard node and to run near-api-js tests against that. The purpose is to detect unintentional changes to near public API. We have disabled actually running the test a while ago, and today the build broke b/c api-js moved from yarn to pnpm. I think at this it's safe to kill this infra completely, as we weren't running it for a while. It would of course be nice to have some in-repo tests covering public JSON API, but I think we are currently server well-enough by betanet and testnet anyway. Testing public APIs via running tests of downstream projects upstream is clearly a wrong way to do that!
# subprocess.check_output(['docker', 'pull', 'v2tec/watchtower']) | ||
# except subprocess.CalledProcessError as exc: | ||
# print("Failed to fetch docker containers: %s" % exc) | ||
# exit(1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ouch, this definitely wasn't meant to be commited, sorry.
I didn't mean to comment the code in setup_and_run, and I did mean to remove wait_on_server, as that was only used by the test removed in near#7667
What this test is intended to do is to spawn a local neard node and to run near-api-js tests against that. The purpose is to detect unintentional changes to near public API. We have disabled actually running the test a while ago, and today the build broke b/c api-js moved from yarn to pnpm. I think at this it's safe to kill this infra completely, as we weren't running it for a while. It would of course be nice to have some in-repo tests covering public JSON API, but I think we are currently server well-enough by betanet and testnet anyway. Testing public APIs via running tests of downstream projects upstream is clearly a wrong way to do that!
What this test is intended to do is to spawn a local neard node and to run near-api-js tests against that.
The purpose is to detect unintentional changes to near public API.
We have disabled actually running the test a while ago, and today the build broke b/c api-js moved from yarn to pnpm.
I think at this it's safe to kill this infra completely, as we weren't running it for a while.
It would of course be nice to have some in-repo tests covering public JSON API, but I think we are currently server well-enough by betanet and testnet anyway.
Testing public APIs via running tests of downstream projects upstream is clearly a wrong way to do that!