-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
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
Upgrade fedora to version 40 in GHA CI #1502
Changes from 2 commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ websockets>=9.1 | |
psutil | ||
|
||
# For running the python-checker tests | ||
hacking==6.1.0 | ||
flake8==6.1.0 | ||
pylint==3.0.3 | ||
mypy==1.8.0 | ||
hacking>=6.1.0 | ||
flake8>=6.1.0 | ||
pylint>=3.0.3 | ||
mypy>=1.8.0 | ||
Comment on lines
+45
to
+48
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I guess you realize what this means (different people with different versions of these tools will get different linter warnings), so no need for me to point this out. Besides, as things now stand, it is already true that sometimes the os versions and sometimes the pypi venv versions of these tools are used, depending on how one sets up their dev environment, so this is not actually something entirely new. What's now new is that this will be also seen in CI (new ci failures on python liner checks because pypi packages were updated, without any code changes in router) There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yeah - this change is a bit heavy handed. I had to advance pylint (I think it was pylint) as the 3.0.3 version was actually failing on F40 (some type assertion). Having newer linter versions catch new errors is a good thing... probably. If it introduces lots of noise then yeah we should set upper version bounds as necessary. |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -535,6 +535,8 @@ def on_message(self, event): | |
router = 'C' | ||
elif event.receiver == self.routers['D']['mgmt_receiver']: | ||
router = 'D' | ||
else: | ||
raise Exception("Unexpected event receiver") | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. which linter warning made you remove these There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. "router" may be used before initialization. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
From the actual context this doesn't appear possible, but yeah there is a hole in the code where router is never set. Rather than suppress the warning I added the Exception as a "defensive coding" approach. This test has a history of being somewhat flaky so I'm sure we'll be hacking at it at some point in the future. Should we change the code in some way where we add a new event receiver then the existing if statement would fail silently and |
||
|
||
# ---------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
# This is a management message. | ||
|
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.
Although this has line has been commented out, containerTag must be 40 ?
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.
woopsie - good catch. Fix upcoming.