Hi, I plan to look at those ports next week. (Nearly?) All the ports have seen newer releases since July. I'm probably going to look at your diff for hint but I doubt I'm going to apply them directly. Two questions: - Do you have any updated diff in your tree? No need to look at them if you don't! I just want to be sure there's no duplicated work but I can do it directly, it's barely the same amount of work. - Do you still want to take Maintainership?
Cheers, Daniel On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 22:33:45 -0300, "Elias M. Mariani" <marianiel...@gmail.com> wrote: > To check for the possibility of this updates affecting other ports I > checked every port using the current versions vs the updated versions, > the results are attached. > The format is: > FULLPKGPATH > Result using current version > Result using new version (if differences exist, none if equals) > > The only ones giving a different result are: > www/py-httpie > 4 failed, 223 passed, 4 skipped, 13 warnings > Error: fixture is being applied more than once to the same function > > devel/py-doit > 2 failed, 731 passed, 21 skipped > Error: fixture is being applied more than once to the same function > > According to the pytest changelog: > "Now when @pytest.fixture is applied more than once to the same > function a ValueError is raised. This buggy behavior would cause > surprising problems and if was working for a test suite it was mostly > by accident." > https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/changelog.html#pytest-3-6-0-2018-05-23 > > So I think that with this we can rest assure that the updates work > fine. With that I propose to update the versions with the unified > diff that I attached as well, and the new dependency on py-test-xdist: > py-test-forked (also attached...). > Doing the change at once seems to me reasonable given the > interdependency and also the way in witch I made the tests. > > Side notes: > - I added Remi and Benoitt to the thread because I think they were the > last ones working with py-httpie and py-doit. And might be interested > I guess in the results. > - The results might be wrong given the nature of the tests, sometimes > errors appear because a conflict with another package and things like > that, but the point of the tests is not to tests the ports in this > case, but whether if the new version present any difference with the > current one. > > Cheers. > Elias. > > 2018-07-22 17:50 GMT-03:00 Elias M. Mariani <marianiel...@gmail.com>: > > I will send this piece by piece. > > Checking the results between the current version and the new one, to > > see if something differ, and if so, if is because a positive outcome > > of the update or a bug in the newer version. > > I think that this will be positive to all, specially those that use > > pytest in their outgoing effort of updating python ports. > > > > Cheers. > > Elias. > > > > 2018-07-22 12:32 GMT-03:00 Elias M. Mariani > > <marianiel...@gmail.com>: > >> Hi Brian, > >> You are right, I will test and check a little more about some of > >> the updates. But bare in mind that I check each one by testing > >> them one by one, including pytest itself. > >> Also tested some of my ports to see if the results matched out, > >> those was: devel/py-parso > >> devel/py-jedi > >> textproc/py-xlrd > >> > >> And some other random ports, > >> Even find out that py-click test wasn't working because we should > >> define LANG=C.UTF-8 before the test, I will check on that later. > >> > >> I will make a full report on the results of several test so you and > >> the others rest assure about the update. > >> About the changes on pytest, I looked into the changes and > >> potential problems, didn't find anything that could make problems, > >> mostly of the things that they changed are just marked as > >> "deprecated". And yes, some changes might need to rework some of > >> the ports if they where invoking for example "python setup.py > >> test" instead of calling pytest directly, so your complain about > >> checking them out is a legit one clearly. > >> That*s why I didn't sent things and that's it, I asked for advice > >> on how to treat the issue. > >> > >> Cheers. > >> Elias. > >> > >> > >> 2018-07-21 23:26 GMT-03:00 Brian Callahan <bcal...@devio.us>: > >>> Hi Elias -- > >>> > >>> On 7/21/2018 7:57 AM, Elias M. Mariani wrote: > >>>> Sorry to ping this but I would like to know how to proceed to > >>>> keep working. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers. > >>>> Elias. > >>>> > >>>> 2018-07-18 15:50 GMT-03:00 Elias M. Mariani > >>>> <marianiel...@gmail.com>: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> I have the following list of ports, all share interdependencies > >>>>> between them, thats why I think that the best would be to > >>>>> commit the hole thing together. > >>>>> I'm talking about py-test. > >>>>> I have the diff ready to update: > >>>>> devel/py-hypothesis > >>>>> devel/py-py > >>>>> devel/py-test > >>>>> devel/py-test-httpbin > >>>>> devel/py-test-localserver > >>>>> devel/py-test-mock > >>>>> devel/py-test-runner > >>>>> devel/py-test-xdist > >>>>> > >>>>> And a tarball with: > >>>>> devel/py-test-forked (new dependency of devel/py-test-xdist). > >>>>> > >>>>> The question is: > >>>>> Should I send a single diff + tarball ? > >>>>> Should I send each by each ? > >>>>> > >>>>> And a bigger "Should I": > >>>>> Maybe create a devel/pytest/* subdir to add the plugins and fix > >>>>> the name convention ? > >>>>> The tool is called pytest, and if we want to update several > >>>>> other plugins of the tool I will need to add even more plugins > >>>>> that are missing and now have interdependencies (like > >>>>> pytest-flake8 and others). > >>>>> > >>>>> Ideas? > >>>>> I attach the single diff and tarball just because is free. > >>>>> I took the liberty of getting the maintainer, if I did wrong or > >>>>> Alexandr wants to keep it, no problem. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers. > >>>>> Elias. > >>> > >>> I haven't seen any public replies to this so I'll throw one in. > >>> > >>> I agree that an update of py-test is beneficial. A quick perusal > >>> of the ports tree turns up at least one port that has its tests > >>> disabled because it needs a newer py-test. > >>> > >>> However, what I don't see either in your initial email with all > >>> the diffs or any of your subsequent mails is any of the hard work > >>> that goes into updating a more foundational port. There are lots > >>> of ports that depend on py-test for their testing apparatus, and > >>> your emails leave me less than confident that you have done the > >>> work to comb through py-test (the Changelog perhaps as a start) > >>> to see if there's any potential changes that would affect > >>> existing ports, or doing the work yourself of actually running > >>> tests before and after the py-test update and comparing the > >>> results. Bumping some MODPY_EGG_VERSION numbers and regen'ing > >>> some PLISTs is easy; that's not the hard work. > >>> > >>> It is one thing when it is a leaf port and a sloppy update breaks > >>> it. We would still be annoyed, but the damage would be minimal, > >>> and very likely spotted before ever being committed. I would be > >>> very upset if an update to py-test broke the testing apparatus of > >>> any of my ports, because I depend on them to find bugs and > >>> coordinate fixes with upstreams. A breakage here would have the > >>> potential to significantly increase the time and labor I have to > >>> spend on updates. > >>> > >>> Frankly, something like this will take coordination with others. > >>> Coming in with a plan, even if the plan itself ultimately gets > >>> changed significantly, would be a good start. Your "Should I" > >>> section in your original mail could be a part of that plan but is > >>> not itself a plan. > >>> > >>> And I'm sorry that I don't have the time to work on an > >>> undertaking such as this. But if you start down the path outlined > >>> above, you are likely to eventually get the attention of > >>> interested developers. Bear in mind that all this takes time, so > >>> "eventually" might be longer than you originally anticipate. > >>> > >>> ~Brian > >>>
