-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 448
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
chore: merge feature/components into feature/craft-application #4654
chore: merge feature/components into feature/craft-application #4654
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Callahan Kovacs <callahan.kovacs@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Callahan Kovacs <callahan.kovacs@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Callahan Kovacs <callahan.kovacs@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Callahan Kovacs <callahan.kovacs@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Callahan Kovacs <callahan.kovacs@canonical.com>
Co-authored-by: Sheng Yu <sheng.yu@canonical.com>
Upcoming Chisel (and chisel-releases) changes will break older versions of the tool; update it to v0.8.1 which is compatible with this change and gives us some breathing room before we change the way Chisel is provisioned. Ref: canonical/rockcraft#449 Co-authored-by: Tiago Nobrega <tiago.nobrega@canonical.com>
…4566) Components beginning with `snap-` are reserved for future use by snapd. Signed-off-by: Callahan Kovacs <callahan.kovacs@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Callahan Kovacs <callahan.kovacs@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Callahan Kovacs <callahan.kovacs@canonical.com>
35bd29b
to
b5db5b5
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good. The CI failures are due to #4651, but once canonical/craft-parts#684 lands and you revert the changes to the requirement files here, the new top-level partition implementation will cause tests to start failing (like tests that assert for prime/default/<file>
).
Wrong issue linked? |
Whoops, yes. I corrected the original comment from |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure if we need to wait the fixes
Signed-off-by: Sergio Schvezov <sergio.schvezov@canonical.com>
There are quite a few test failures |
yeah, the version check tests are all failing, I am not sure what happened, because I am certain I fixed them 😓 |
Signed-off-by: Sergio Schvezov <sergio.schvezov@canonical.com>
f11914c
to
035a981
Compare
A refactor happened in Craft Parts and the logic was not carried over to Snapcraft in the Craft Parts commit 9fe38d11637f037b37fe76aa5ecc013a9bc39695 This is however an irrelevant test with regards to the Snapcraft Application itself. Signed-off-by: Sergio Schvezov <sergio.schvezov@canonical.com>
035a981
to
2cf7751
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## feature/craft-application #4654 +/- ##
=============================================================
+ Coverage 89.14% 89.42% +0.27%
=============================================================
Files 331 336 +5
Lines 22078 22433 +355
=============================================================
+ Hits 19682 20061 +379
+ Misses 2396 2372 -24 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
@sergiusens I see the component-related spread tests are still failing, do you want me to review the PR still? |
Signed-off-by: Sergio Schvezov <sergio.schvezov@canonical.com>
Also make the clean actually clean the correct provider Signed-off-by: Sergio Schvezov <sergio.schvezov@canonical.com>
It was cd-ing into snap but not cleaning from within. Signed-off-by: Sergio Schvezov <sergio.schvezov@canonical.com>
@tigarmo organize is not organizing from the looks of it. Would be great if anyone can figure out why. I added a couple more test fixes and a spread cleanup as there were errors in how it was done (left overs) |
we also do not need 3 tests for components, one could have been enough |
Signed-off-by: Sergio Schvezov <sergio.schvezov@canonical.com>
Partitions/Components are not working in non-destructive-mode Clean up testing Signed-off-by: Sergio Schvezov <sergio.schvezov@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Sergio Schvezov <sergio.schvezov@canonical.com>
…CRAFT-2581/merge-components
use better naming for easier error detection Signed-off-by: Sergio Schvezov <sergio.schvezov@canonical.com>
# exclude a file in the default partition | ||
- -(default)/other-file-in-snap | ||
prime: | ||
# exclude a file in a partitionk |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
# exclude a file in a partitionk | |
# exclude a file in a partition |
setup.py
Outdated
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ def recursive_data_files(directory, install_directory): | |||
"craft-cli", | |||
"craft-grammar", | |||
"craft-parts", | |||
"craft-providers", | |||
"craft-providers @ git+https://github.com/canonical/craft-providers@main#egg=craft-providers", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
craft-providers 1.23.1
is released, I don't think you need to bring this in
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
great! I thought I had gotten rid of this!
snap refresh snapd --stable | ||
|
||
execute: | | ||
# Craft Parts is not partitions aware during organize in managed mode |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tested, canonical/craft-parts#689 fixes this, so we'll be able to fix this in a subsequent PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
might as well have @cmatsuoka release that tomorrow and I can just ensure we update the test here
Fixes an issue discovered via canonical/snapcraft#4654 where `organize_files()` would organize in the cwd instead of the project's base_dir. The problem was that `organize_files()` was redefining a part's install directories incorrectly by creating relative filepaths. To fix this, organize_files now accepts the part's install directories instead of redefining them. Signed-off-by: Callahan Kovacs <callahan.kovacs@canonical.com>
Fixes an issue discovered via canonical/snapcraft#4654 where `organize_files()` would organize in the cwd instead of the project's base_dir. The problem was that `organize_files()` was redefining a part's install directories incorrectly by creating relative filepaths. To fix this, organize_files now accepts the part's install directories instead of redefining them. Signed-off-by: Callahan Kovacs <callahan.kovacs@canonical.com>
Fixes an issue discovered via canonical/snapcraft#4654 where `organize_files()` would organize in the cwd instead of the project's base_dir. The problem was that `organize_files()` was redefining a part's install directories incorrectly by creating relative filepaths. To fix this, organize_files now accepts the part's install directories instead of redefining them. Signed-off-by: Callahan Kovacs <callahan.kovacs@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Sergio Schvezov <sergio.schvezov@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Sergio Schvezov <sergio.schvezov@canonical.com>
They need fixing and should be added as part of the task to implement the feature itself. Signed-off-by: Sergio Schvezov <sergio.schvezov@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Sergio Schvezov <sergio.schvezov@canonical.com>
tox run -m lint
?tox run -e test-py310
? (supported versions:py39
,py310
,py311
,py312
)