Skip to content

GH-100479: Fix pathlib test failure on WASI #104215

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 7, 2023
Merged

GH-100479: Fix pathlib test failure on WASI #104215

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 2 additions & 1 deletion Lib/test/test_pathlib.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1655,7 +1655,8 @@ class P(_BasePurePathSubclass, self.cls):
p = P(BASE, session_id=42)
self.assertEqual(42, p.absolute().session_id)
self.assertEqual(42, p.resolve().session_id)
self.assertEqual(42, p.with_segments('~').expanduser().session_id)
if not is_wasi: # WASI has no user accounts.
Copy link
Member

@ericsnowcurrently ericsnowcurrently May 5, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

FWIW, I know very little about this module or how the tests are usually done. That said, it looks like all the other uses of is_wasi in this file relate to skipping the whole test, rather than a part of it. Personally, I have no relevant opinion on if your change is okay. 😄 (My irrelevant opinion is that, generally, the behavior of a test should not change based on some environmental condition.)

(Also, FYI, I pointed out the failing buildbot earlier because the first failure happened when a change of mine was merged. That's when I noticed it was probably the pathlib change. Otherwise I don't have any particular interest and probably would not have noticed. 😄)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree with Eric -- if it's just a specific part of this test that fails on WASI, best to separate it out into a separate test method that's decorated with @skipIf(is_wasi, "WASI has no user accounts")

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree in principle, but this style of tweaking test behaviour slightly based on what the system supports is pervasive throughout test_pathlib.py. For example, a few lines below we have:

        if os_helper.can_symlink():
            self.assertEqual(42, (p / 'linkA').readlink().session_id)

Is there something to be said for using a consistent approach, even if it's imperfect?

(I don't feel strongly about this, just thought I'd point it out!)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm. I don't like it, and I'd love to see a PR cleaning all those up ;)

But I guess consistency wins the day for now!

self.assertEqual(42, p.with_segments('~').expanduser().session_id)
self.assertEqual(42, (p / 'fileA').rename(p / 'fileB').session_id)
self.assertEqual(42, (p / 'fileB').replace(p / 'fileA').session_id)
if os_helper.can_symlink():
Expand Down