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

RSpec Tests Failing in GitHub Actions #1517

Closed
stephen-ritter opened this issue Sep 5, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1518
Closed

RSpec Tests Failing in GitHub Actions #1517

stephen-ritter opened this issue Sep 5, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1518
Assignees
Labels
maintenance Dependencies or other issues not bugs or features

Comments

@stephen-ritter
Copy link

stephen-ritter commented Sep 5, 2024

The GitHub actions do not appear to be flagging failing rpsec tests correctly. The rspec tests are failing under the Run unit tests without extensions, and you can see it here (I just chose the latest action against main):
https://github.com/OpenC3/cosmos/actions/runs/10641139981/job/29501905102

I did some tests locally and ran rspec --bisect against these tests and it appears these three tests are in conflict with another test. Here is my output:

Bisect started using options: "--tag=no_ext"
Running suite to find failures... (1.64 seconds)
Starting bisect with 3 failing examples and 488 non-failing examples.
Checking that failure(s) are order-dependent... failure appears to be order-dependent

Round 1: bisecting over non-failing examples 1-488 . ignoring examples 1-244 (0.72524 seconds)
Round 2: bisecting over non-failing examples 245-488 .. ignoring examples 367-488 (1.17 seconds)
Round 3: bisecting over non-failing examples 245-366 . ignoring examples 245-305 (0.4793 seconds)
Round 4: bisecting over non-failing examples 306-366 . ignoring examples 306-336 (0.45383 seconds)
Round 5: bisecting over non-failing examples 337-366 . ignoring examples 337-351 (0.42755 seconds)
Round 6: bisecting over non-failing examples 352-366 .. ignoring examples 360-366 (0.92483 seconds)
Round 7: bisecting over non-failing examples 352-359 .. ignoring examples 356-359 (0.93596 seconds)
Round 8: bisecting over non-failing examples 352-355 . ignoring examples 352-353 (0.44563 seconds)
Round 9: bisecting over non-failing examples 354-355 . ignoring example 354 (0.42457 seconds)
Bisect complete! Reduced necessary non-failing examples from 488 to 1 in 6.46 seconds.

The minimal reproduction command is:
  rspec './spec/config/config_parser_spec.rb[1:1:19]' './spec/packets/packet_config_spec.rb[1:1:25:1,1:1:25:2,1:1:25:3]' --tag=no_ext
@jmthomas jmthomas self-assigned this Sep 5, 2024
@jmthomas
Copy link
Member

jmthomas commented Sep 5, 2024

@stephen-ritter thanks for this report! We were overloadingexit() in our spec_helper and not calling super() so we were eating the return code. I'm surprised this hasn't shown up in other places but it was an easy fix. I also fixed the example you specified by clearing the callback in the config_parser_spec.

@stephen-ritter
Copy link
Author

Thanks! I can confirm #1518 fixed those tests as well.

@jmthomas jmthomas added the maintenance Dependencies or other issues not bugs or features label Sep 6, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
maintenance Dependencies or other issues not bugs or features
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants