lookup: add yarn to lookup.json #905
Merged
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
|
@targos is there any way to see the error details? And had it succeeded? |
|
There are many failures. You can see the details for each Node.js version with the following links: |
merceyz
suggested changes
May 11, 2022
Codecov ReportAll modified lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #905 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 96.44% 96.44%
=======================================
Files 28 28
Lines 2139 2139
=======================================
Hits 2063 2063
Misses 76 76 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
merceyz
suggested changes
May 11, 2022
edvardchen
changed the title
|
Is it ready for another CI round? |
|
Not yet, we'll also need to skip all big-endian platforms as that's currently not supported. |
is there any way we can know the test machine use big endian or little endian? @targos |
|
Not sure. @richardlau probably knows better. |
|
Jest has the same requirement so you can copy its Line 268 in 908ebe2 |
Not directly in the CITGM lookup table, but in the Node.js CI "aix" and "s390x" are big endian.
FWIW of those only the first two ( |
|
@targos I think we are ready for another CI round |
|
They all fail with the same error: |
|
I can reproduce: |
|
Seems 4666750 (#905 (comment)) needs to be reverted, I was assuming it would get the version from the git repo and not the registry. |
|
Result on my mac after reverting to |
|
I don't know why the output is cut. Rerunning with a wider terminal... |
3 tasks
|
Most (all?) of the fails seem to be around timeouts - perhaps it'd be reasonable to just ignore tests that timeout? 🤔 ~10 tests skipped over almost 1200 is already a good improvement over the existing. |
|
@arcanis reasonable. Let me turn on the |
|
@targos do you mind giving it another CI round? |
|
targos
reviewed
May 24, 2022
edvardchen
force-pushed
the
look-yarn
branch
2 times, most recently
from
07e7fd9
to
a6d1b3e
Compare
|
mark |
|
Does |
|
@targos hi, it's ready for another CI round. BTW, is it ok to print the I tried to do that (edvardchen@73245e5) but it broke the test case proc.stdout.once('data', () => {
proc.kill('SIGINT');
}); |
4 tasks
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Argh. Looks like we're getting the "passes locally but fails in Jenkins CI" thing. Anybody have some time to investigate? I'm not likely to dig too deep today..... EDIT: @arcanis correclty points out the FURTHER EDIT: There's also a heap exhaustion issue in one of the results. YET ANOTHER EDIT: And @arcanis points out a legit failure too. I'm going to run against 20.x instead of the Node.js main branch to see if it clears up other things or not.... |
|
Running against 20.x: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker/3289/ |
|
I've created a new Yarn canary release so that yarnpkg/berry#5763 is included. |
Thanks! I've changed this PR so that it does that. Let's see how that goes.... CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker/3290/ |
Trott
force-pushed
the
look-yarn
branch
2 times, most recently
from
f2c52e0
to
b13394e
Compare
|
Let's see if the unit tests pass anywhere. I think this skips the acceptance tests. I guess we'll see. https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker/3291/ |
Unit tests passed everywhere except AIX and Windows. My inclination is to skip AIX and Windows and land unit tests only. Adding integration/acceptance tests can be a follow-up PR. |
|
CI with Node.js 20.x: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker/3292/ |
I think "skip" is ignored with Node.js 20.x CITGM: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker/3294/ (will 404 until job starts) |
|
@Trott You can run |
No yarn failures with this configuration, but we're only running the unit tests and not integration/acceptance tests. I'm inclined to land this and push a release so we have at least some yarn coverage in CITGM. If people want to add additional tests for yarn in subsequent PRs, then great! But even if not, this is better than the current situation. |
Trott
approved these changes
Sep 30, 2023
arcanis
approved these changes
Sep 30, 2023
merceyz
approved these changes
Sep 30, 2023
4 tasks
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.
Checklist
npm testpasses