[all] Lower-constraints in some projects broken - update your repos
radoslaw.piliszek at gmail.com
Sat Apr 18 16:54:33 UTC 2020
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 6:01 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
> On 2020-04-18 17:22:38 +0200 (+0200), Radosław Piliszek wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 5:18 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2020-04-18 16:18:24 +0200 (+0200), Radosław Piliszek wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 2:56 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > In what way is it not enforced? Or put another way, what were you
> > > > > expecting it to enforce which it doesn't?
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I mean the lockfile part.
> > > > If lower-constraints jobs pass without enforcing each transitive
> > > > dependency, then it's not enforced in this way.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > I wouldn't mind digging into a specific example of this. It seems
> > > likely to be one (or more) of:
> > > <snip>
> > Be my guest. The case is about *transitive* dependencies, not direct.
> > See the already mentioned kolla-cli change. 
> > This is what is not enforced (except for Sean's legit -1 :-) ).
> >  https://review.opendev.org/720754
> Thanks. So you're asserting that the problem here is that 720754,4
> has a passing openstack-tox-lower-constraints build but you think it
> should not? Can you explain little more as to why you think it
> should have failed?
I am not sure whether it should. I am just asking how far this thing should go.
This is all regarding the Sean's comment that I removed too much.
No other agenda. :D
> I see you removing a bunch of package versions from the constraints
> list, but that's not what the job is intended to catch. It's there
> to find out if tests pass using the versions you're saying you want
> installed. If that's the concern, it's like saying a job should fail
> if you remove some tests from it. We run jobs to tell us if the
> things we want to test work, not to tell us that we've stopped
> testing something (coverage jobs being an obvious exception there).
OK, that makes it clear. No coverage, just extra install pinned fun.
Too lazy to test but I guess empty lower-constraints.txt would make
tox happy as well.
> What I would consider a problem with the job is if the constraints
> file specified one version of a package but a different version of
> that package got installed instead. If *that's* what's happening
> (though skimming the logs I don't see any evidence of it) then I
> agree something is wrong and we should seek to fix it. I did at
> least double-check that the entries you've left in
> lower-constraints.txt match those pip installed according to
> tox/lower-constraints-1.log so it looks to me like its working as
Nah, it's surely not happening.
The point was really about coverage and what we want from
lower-constraints really (as OpenStack community).
More information about the openstack-discuss