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

Add two tests that document portability issues of run-records #491

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mih
Copy link
Member

@mih mih commented Oct 19, 2023

  • IO specifications are stored in platform-native conventions
  • IO specifications are reported as-is

combined with the absence of any platform type record, this makes run-records non-portable across unix/windows scopes.

Ping datalad/datalad#7512

TODO

  • rethink the interpretation of old run-records. I tend to believe that we should never guess. We should add a config switch how run-records are to be intepreted. By default, all recorded paths should be considered POSIX. By config, we should be able to switch that to windows (not to native). This could/would be considered for reading (rerun) AND writing (run). If incoming paths are incompatible with the setting (e.g., absolute windows path and a POSIX setting), an error would be issued.

@mih mih force-pushed the runpatch branch 2 times, most recently from dfcb669 to a77f06b Compare October 20, 2023 05:50
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 20, 2023

Codecov Report

Attention: 5 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (ce6a9c5) 92.41% compared to head (099fa24) 92.37%.
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #491      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   92.41%   92.37%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         126      125       -1     
  Lines        9577     9611      +34     
  Branches     1036     1038       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits         8851     8878      +27     
- Misses        704      711       +7     
  Partials       22       22              
Files Coverage Δ
datalad_next/patches/tests/test_run.py 98.80% <100.00%> (+0.32%) ⬆️
datalad_next/patches/run.py 92.18% <86.84%> (-7.82%) ⬇️

... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes

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

- IO specifications are stored in platform-native conventions
- IO specifications are reported as-is

combined with the absence of any platform type record, this makes
run-records non-portable across unix/windows scopes.

Ping datalad/datalad#7512
There is limited support for reading and acting on old run-records
that have paths stored in platform conventions. Detection works
when the path matching an existing item on the file system.

Paths are always stored in POSIX notation, whenever they are relative.
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.

None yet

2 participants