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

Remove reliance on hardcoded user in ci #1170

Merged
merged 21 commits into from
Nov 26, 2024
Merged

Remove reliance on hardcoded user in ci #1170

merged 21 commits into from
Nov 26, 2024

Conversation

DmitriyMusatkin
Copy link
Contributor

Issue #, if available:

Description of changes:

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.


jobs:
linux-compat:
runs-on: ubuntu-20.04 # latest
runs-on: ubuntu-22.04 # latest
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why not 24?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

some of the older compilers are not available on 24 (clang 3 and gcc 4.8 if i remember correctly). dropping those from our ci is a bridge we can cross later

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

BTW, Does this version of Ubuntu matter since our Docker base image is Ubuntu 18?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

actually you are right. it should not affect the compiler cause underlying image is old. let me retest. i saw old compilers failing when i moved to 24, so i assumed its related, but maybe it is not.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Nov 22, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.63%. Comparing base (45230f0) to head (8eb1b1a).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1170   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.63%   83.63%           
=======================================
  Files          57       57           
  Lines        5953     5953           
=======================================
  Hits         4979     4979           
  Misses        974      974           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

.github/workflows/ci.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/hash_table_test.c Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/ci.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
@DmitriyMusatkin DmitriyMusatkin merged commit 252e8c2 into main Nov 26, 2024
56 checks passed
Copy link
Contributor

@graebm graebm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

shipit 👍

graebm added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 27, 2024
**Issue**
A recent PR #1170 (comment) fixed an indexing-math bug in this test. When I took a closer look at this test, I noticed it was broken ... and didn't make much sense

**Research:**
This hash table test was added with the original hash table PR #17.

That branch had 2 different authors, which seems to have led to the brokenness
- Original [commit](c2a7f08) with this test
- In this [commit](ab4e987), author B accidentally replaces floating-point-rand with integer-rand, breaking randomness so this test doesn't actually test anything anymore
- In this [commit](fe71f05), Author A removes some `entries[i -1]` checks that don't really make sense because `entries` isn't sorted
- In this [commit](a36d2dd), Author B brings the checks back. My guess is there was a merge conflict and they just accepted their own side

**Description of changes**
- Fix randomness
- Add comments about what this test is doing
- Fix the checks, using the `sorted_entries` array instead of the unsorted `entries` array
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.

4 participants