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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

pythonPackages.atom: init at 0.4.1 #48133

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 12, 2018
Merged

pythonPackages.atom: init at 0.4.1 #48133

merged 1 commit into from Oct 12, 2018

Conversation

bhipple
Copy link
Contributor

@bhipple bhipple commented Oct 10, 2018 •
edited

Motivation for this change
Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

@bhipple bhipple requested a review from FRidh as a code owner October 10, 2018 01:03
@bhipple
Copy link
Contributor Author

bhipple commented Oct 10, 2018

@GrahamcOfBorg build python2Packages.atom python3Packages.atom

@GrahamcOfBorg
Copy link

Success on x86_64-linux (full log)

Attempted: python2Packages.atom, python3Packages.atom

Partial log (click to expand)

running build_ext
copying build/lib.linux-x86_64-3.6/atom/catom.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so -> atom
copying build/lib.linux-x86_64-3.6/atom/datastructures/sortedmap.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so -> atom/datastructures

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 0 tests in 0.000s

OK
/nix/store/qrjxa6agic1xlv4smp06drh0rg1f5z7y-python2.7-atom-0.4.1
/nix/store/gg27h2m4l0p7pc9ph47ww102grqchhhk-python3.6-atom-0.4.1

@GrahamcOfBorg
Copy link

Success on aarch64-linux (full log)

Attempted: python2Packages.atom, python3Packages.atom

Partial log (click to expand)

running build_ext
copying build/lib.linux-aarch64-3.6/atom/catom.cpython-36m-aarch64-linux-gnu.so -> atom
copying build/lib.linux-aarch64-3.6/atom/datastructures/sortedmap.cpython-36m-aarch64-linux-gnu.so -> atom/datastructures

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 0 tests in 0.000s

OK
/nix/store/xdcm8jw6bapx1l04rmczffngzjqjn9jh-python2.7-atom-0.4.1
/nix/store/l4sv36lf421i7myfckax1rdh0kzh62nh-python3.6-atom-0.4.1

@bhipple
Copy link
Contributor Author

bhipple commented Oct 10, 2018

I spent a long while trying to figure out how to get it to run the tests; it seems to still be running them but not find anything?

Seems upstream is using py.test, but they also have a Makefile deployed, which I think is why the build function is getting confused?
https://github.com/nucleic/atom/blob/master/.travis.yml#L31

@costrouc
Copy link
Member

costrouc commented Oct 10, 2018 •
edited

It is running py.test but the pypi release did not include the tests so none are run see contents of 0.4.1 release also at https://pypi.org/project/atom/#files. Sadly this is common that developers don't package the tests in the release.

@nlewo nlewo merged commit 68e1e0e into NixOS:master Oct 12, 2018
@bhipple
Copy link
Contributor Author

bhipple commented Oct 12, 2018

Indeed, I had tried using fetchFromGitHub instead of fetchPypi, and while that does indeed include the tests in the tarball it still wasn't running them.

@bhipple bhipple deleted the add/atom branch February 27, 2019 23:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@FRidh FRidh Awaiting requested review from FRidh

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
6.topic: python 8.has: package (new) 10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@bhipple @GrahamcOfBorg @costrouc @nlewo