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

[Bug]: Py310 unittests on MacOS are failing #23734

Closed
AnandInguva opened this issue Oct 19, 2022 · 9 comments
Closed

[Bug]: Py310 unittests on MacOS are failing #23734

AnandInguva opened this issue Oct 19, 2022 · 9 comments

Comments

@AnandInguva
Copy link
Contributor

AnandInguva commented Oct 19, 2022

What happened?

Python 3.10 unit tests are failing on MacOS. Could be related to newer version of grpcio, transitive dependency of grpcio-tools released on October 18, 2022.
https://github.com/apache/beam/actions/runs/3278125487/jobs/5396167668

Issue Priority

Priority: 1

Issue Component

Component: test-failures

@AnandInguva
Copy link
Contributor Author

.add-labels "failing test"

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Label "failing cannot be managed because it does not exist in the repo. Please check your spelling.

@AnandInguva
Copy link
Contributor Author

Partial fix: #23735 is to pin a version to grpcio only for MacOS. I was able to pass this locally but it fails on GH actiions.

@damccorm
Copy link
Contributor

@AnandInguva looks like it is now working with your fix on master - https://github.com/apache/beam/actions/runs/3286759714/jobs/5415213138

@AnandInguva
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes, we can downgrade this to P2. But still, it doesn't explain why the sdist of grpcio is failing on MacOS.

Is there a way to SSH into the GH workers and check why the sdist failing? @damccorm

@AnandInguva
Copy link
Contributor Author

.add-labels P2

@damccorm damccorm added P2 and removed P1 labels Oct 20, 2022
@damccorm
Copy link
Contributor

Technically, yes - https://github.com/appleboy/ssh-action - but we can't add that action to the main beam repo because its a big security hole. If you want to go that route, I'd recommend doing it on a fork of the repo. You might be better off just scripting commands to run in your fork and checking them in as actions steps though

@AnandInguva
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks Danny. I will try to debug that way.

@AnandInguva
Copy link
Contributor Author

This has been solved in #24599.

@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 2.47.0 Release milestone Apr 3, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants