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

lookup: add npm #489

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 7, 2021
Merged

lookup: add npm #489

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 7, 2021

Conversation

addaleax
Copy link
Member

This was, surprisingly, not in this list. Also, I am not sure, but I guess this shouldn’t be merged as long as npm is broken on node master?

Checklist
  • npm test passes
  • tests are included
  • documentation is changed or added
  • contribution guidelines followed here

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor

MylesBorins commented Oct 11, 2017 via email

@addaleax
Copy link
Member Author

If I remember correctly, the main (only?) reason we’re not currently running it is that it makes a lot of network calls, but then again citgm isn’t exactly shy of doing that anyway…

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member

gibfahn commented Oct 16, 2017

I assume we normally want to test the vendored copy of npm rather than latest, which is what gibfahn-test-npm and gibfahn-test-npm-win do (see also nodejs/build#317 and nodejs/node#11540). I was hoping for review from the npm team, but barring that I'll just land it.

My issue with this is that the npm tests have never passed for me on any platform other than macOS, and seem to be flaky there. See the latest runs of the CI jobs for an example. If we're going to have to mark it as flaky everywhere there's not much point in having it.

@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member

@gibfahn I guess it would still be useful to have npm run in case the tests pass on OS-X. So we could just skip them everywhere else.

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member

gibfahn commented Feb 18, 2018

@gibfahn I guess it would still be useful to have npm run in case the tests pass on OS-X. So we could just skip them everywhere else.

They're also flaky on macOS...

If someone would like to raise a PR adding npm we can run citgm on it to test. I'm not strongly against adding npm, just skeptical of the benefits.

@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member

@gibfahn I am not sure what PR you would want besides this one?

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member

gibfahn commented Feb 19, 2018

@gibfahn I am not sure what PR you would want besides this one?

Sorry, got my wires crossed.

Smoker run: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker-nobuild/239/

@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member

BridgeAR commented May 21, 2018

If we can run the npm tests at least on one system, I still think we should do that.

New smoker run: 10. https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker-nobuild/284/ 8. https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker-nobuild/285/ Wrong runs... I should get some sleep.

@targos
Copy link
Member

targos commented May 17, 2019

on Linux:

error:                       | 4200 passing (7m)                                                                                                                                
error:                       | 11 pending                                                                                                                                       
error:                       | 28 failing          

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented May 17, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #489 (97416b5) into main (d0185d9) will decrease coverage by 0.79%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #489      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   96.12%   95.33%   -0.80%     
==========================================
  Files          31       26       -5     
  Lines         929      900      -29     
==========================================
- Hits          893      858      -35     
- Misses         36       42       +6     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
lib/spawn.js 69.23% <0.00%> (-30.77%) ⬇️
lib/match-conditions.js 91.48% <0.00%> (-2.13%) ⬇️
bin/citgm.js 98.00% <0.00%> (-2.00%) ⬇️
bin/citgm-all.js 91.00% <0.00%> (-1.00%) ⬇️
test/fixtures/omg-i-timeout/test.js
test/fixtures/omg-i-pass-with-scripts/build.js
test/fixtures/omg-i-pass-with-scripts/test.js
test/fixtures/omg-i-write-to-tmpdir/test.js
...ixtures/omg-i-pass-with-install-param/test_args.js

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 d0185d9...97416b5. Read the comment docs.

@targos targos added the WIP Work in progress label May 18, 2019
@MylesBorins MylesBorins changed the base branch from master to main August 14, 2020 21:00
@targos
Copy link
Member

targos commented Mar 6, 2021

Launched https://github.com/targos/citgm/actions/runs/627105955 to check the status.

@targos
Copy link
Member

targos commented Mar 6, 2021

It's green! Let's try with more platforms: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker-pipeline/137/

@richardlau
Copy link
Member

The failure on LinuxONE (s390x) is tapjs/tapjs#691, the underlying cause being emscripten currently lacking support for big endian systems (emscripten-core/emscripten#12387).

This was, surprisingly, not in this list.
@targos
Copy link
Member

targos commented Mar 6, 2021

Rebased and skipped s390.

@targos targos removed the WIP Work in progress label Mar 6, 2021
@targos
Copy link
Member

targos commented Mar 7, 2021

@targos targos merged commit a7a1799 into nodejs:main Mar 7, 2021
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 18, 2021
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.

7 participants