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

tox: add generic xdist factor #4753

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 11, 2019
Merged

Conversation

blueyed
Copy link
Contributor

@blueyed blueyed commented Feb 8, 2019

No description provided.

@blueyed
Copy link
Contributor Author

blueyed commented Feb 8, 2019

Motivated by using -xdist for more jobs (for faster builds).
But then I've noticed that we run both py37 and py37-xdist also..

Is it sensible to use -xdist with py34, py35, and py36?

coverage: coverage combine
coverage: coverage report
passenv = USER USERNAME COVERAGE_* TRAVIS
setenv =
_PYTEST_TOX_ARGS=--lsof
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i suspect this needs a comment that taking off lsoff for xdist is intended

we still need some thing to run lsoff against tho

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

--lsof was not used with the previous py27-xdist / py37-xdist jobs, that's why I've removed it here. Will try to keep it in general.

@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

Is it sensible to use -xdist with py34, py35, and py36?

I don't think it is necessary... we run xdist to ensure we are not breaking things with it, and we run both py27-xdist and py37-xdist to catch py2 vs py3 discrepancies.

@blueyed
Copy link
Contributor Author

blueyed commented Feb 9, 2019

Is it sensible to use -xdist with py34, py35, and py36?

I don't think it is necessary...

My intention is to make the builds faster.

I suggest to use -xdist for all normal (py*) builds, but then maybe py27 and py37 additionally to test them without xdist.

@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

I suggest to use -xdist for all normal (py*) builds, but then maybe py27 and py37 additionally to test them without xdist.

Oh sorry, I didn't catch that meaning at first. I think that's fair. 👍

@blueyed blueyed changed the title tox: add generic xdist factor tox: add/use generic xdist factor Feb 9, 2019
.travis.yml Outdated
python: 'pypy2.7-6.0'
- env: TOXENV=pypy3-xdist PYTEST_NO_COVERAGE=1
python: 'pypy3.5-6.0'

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Relevant: #3460.

.travis.yml Outdated
@@ -31,16 +31,16 @@ matrix:
jobs:
include:
# Coverage tracking is slow with pypy, skip it.
- env: TOXENV=pypy PYTEST_NO_COVERAGE=1
- env: TOXENV=pypy-xdist PYTEST_NO_COVERAGE=1
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i believe we need to ensure lsof on pypy due to gc differences in order to catch unwanted issues

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok.

This is not related to pypy-xdist failing on Windows though, is it?
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/pytestbot/pytest/builds/22239624/job/2hns6pgk71weay26

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

no, thats probably an issue with execnet

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 10, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #4753 into features will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           features    #4753      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage      95.7%   95.69%   -0.02%     
============================================
  Files           113      113              
  Lines         25028    25028              
  Branches       2484     2484              
============================================
- Hits          23953    23950       -3     
  Misses          760      760              
- Partials        315      318       +3
Flag Coverage Δ
#docs 29.62% <ø> (+0.07%) ⬆️
#doctesting 29.62% <ø> (+0.07%) ⬆️
#linting 29.62% <ø> (+0.07%) ⬆️
#linux 95.52% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#lsof 93.84% <ø> (?)
#nobyte 92.31% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
#numpy 93.11% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
#pexpect 42.01% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#py27 93.71% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
#py34 91.69% <ø> (-0.04%) ⬇️
#py35 91.69% <ø> (-0.04%) ⬇️
#py36 91.71% <ø> (-0.04%) ⬇️
#py37 93.8% <ø> (-0.03%) ⬇️
#trial 93.11% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
#windows 93.87% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
#xdist 93.79% <ø> (+0.06%) ⬆️
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/_pytest/cacheprovider.py 95.75% <0%> (-1.42%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ed01dc6...7bee359. Read the comment docs.

@blueyed blueyed changed the title tox: add/use generic xdist factor tox: add generic xdist factor Feb 11, 2019
@blueyed
Copy link
Contributor Author

blueyed commented Feb 11, 2019

Reverted this back to only change tox.ini for now.

@blueyed blueyed merged commit 31c9481 into pytest-dev:features Feb 11, 2019
@blueyed blueyed deleted the tox-xdist branch February 11, 2019 22:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants