Allow control of --check-bounds command option #46
Conversation
IanButterworth
force-pushed
the
ib/bounds_check_control
branch
from
c5537d8 to
607d74c
Compare
IanButterworth
force-pushed
the
ib/bounds_check_control
branch
2 times, most recently
from
58fc1e0 to
17f2a09
Compare
IanButterworth
force-pushed
the
ib/bounds_check_control
branch
from
17f2a09 to
53c01e3
Compare
|
I'm not sure how to fix the bash here. Hopefully it's clear what i'm trying to do |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #46 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 1 1
Lines 2 2
=========================================
Hits 2 2 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Ok. Should be fixed now |
|
Can you squash the commits? At a glance, it looks right to me, but I'm not the most familiar with this repo, so it would be good to get an approval from someone that knows the code better than I do. |
|
I'll take a look later. I can squash it on merge, no need for it now. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The script looks alright, but I'm not sure about the behaviour of bounds checks.
Could you perhaps run the action thrice in a row for a package/script with all three inputs to see if it fails/behaves as expected as a demo?
Perhaps in a fork of https://github.com/julia-actions/Example.jl/blob/action-tests/test/runtests.jl?
|
Bounds check behavior confirmed on slack to be
Happy to test run this with each config. How can I use this PR of the action though? |
Co-authored-by: Sascha Mann <git@mail.saschamann.eu>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Happy to test run this with each config. How can I use this PR of the action though?
Replace - uses: julia-actions/julia-runtest@v1 with - uses: IanButterworth/julia-runtest@ib/bounds_check_control in the workflow in the repo/package you want to run the tests in. Doesn't have to be merged, you can replace and run it on a branch.
Co-authored-by: Sascha Mann <git@mail.saschamann.eu>
|
Needs a fix in Pkg, as it turns out Would be easier with JuliaLang/julia#41551 |
|
Let's wait for that to be resolved then |
|
This PR IanButterworth/SystemBenchmark.jl#50 is running on [ On nightly it is respected, and can be seen in the command args shown at the start of the test suite.
Turned out to be a bug in this PR. Update: This PR is now failing where I would expect it to fail (until JuliaLang/julia#41551 is backported to 1.6) |
Co-authored-by: Sascha Mann <git@mail.saschamann.eu>
|
@SaschaMann Should be ready to merge as this works on nightly, and the backports of JuliaLang/julia#41551 are labelled |
kwargs.jl
Outdated
| elseif julia_args != `` | ||
| println("::warning::The `julia_args` option requires at least Julia 1.6. VERSION=$VERSION, julia_args=$julia_args") | ||
| end |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry to ask again, I want to be sure to understand this before merging: Can julia_args ever be `` here? It's set to julia_args = ["--check-bounds=${{ inputs.check_bounds }}"] in action.yml and ${{ inputs.check_bounds }} defaults to yes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good catch. Should be fixed now. The change makes kwargs.jl more specific to how it's used in this action, which I assumed wasn't a problem
|
Sorry, I haven't had time to look at this again yet, it's on my list for the weekend. |
Co-authored-by: Chris Foster <chris42f@gmail.com>
|
It'd be nice to get this in |
|
Sorry for the delay |
I believe this command option is a bit more complicated than setting
--check-boundsto yes (force always) or no (force never), because the default state is a 3rd state where--check-boundsis omitted entirely, and bounds checking is done per code decisions.. It'd be good if someone could confirm my understanding on that though.. the code is a bit hard to follow.This is untested. I've not figured out how to test this in an action yet