-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 218
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
ci: Run tests in CI #1388
Merged
Merged
ci: Run tests in CI #1388
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
hrkfdn
force-pushed
the
hf/ci_test
branch
4 times, most recently
from
February 4, 2024 10:53
479fa22
to
cd25442
Compare
Quickly tested and seems like |
Hmm, I tested on my machine and it only linked the binary and didn't need
to rebuild the crates, but maybe there's a cleaner way.
I also thought of simply running `cargo test` only, as that would check the
build by itself.
…On Sun, Feb 4, 2024, 1:36 PM Thomas Frans ***@***.***> wrote:
I'm not 100% sure about this but doesn't the test build use a different
build profile? It does inherit the dev profile, but I don't know whether
cargo is smart enough to reuse the same build artifacts in practice...
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1388 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAE3LE6KX2IMUQRNNKM5CTYR56F5AVCNFSM6AAAAABCYXI2E6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMRVG4ZTINJRHA>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Yes I was wrong. I should have tested first. I just assumed that cargo treated both differently. |
hrkfdn
force-pushed
the
hf/ci_test
branch
8 times, most recently
from
February 4, 2024 21:05
0215e47
to
216fe82
Compare
Thanks to contributors test coverage is becoming a thing, thus it makes sense to run tests in CI workflows. Additionally, switch back to `cargo build` instead of `cargo check`, as the tests need compilation anyway.
hrkfdn
force-pushed
the
hf/ci_test
branch
12 times, most recently
from
March 5, 2024 10:10
9011e6e
to
7474f04
Compare
hrkfdn
force-pushed
the
hf/ci_test
branch
4 times, most recently
from
March 5, 2024 10:38
7f968ad
to
0253468
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Describe your changes
Thanks to contributors test coverage is becoming a thing, thus it makes sense to run tests in CI workflows.
Additionally, switch back to
cargo build
instead ofcargo check
, as the tests need compilation anyway.Issue ticket number and link
Checklist before requesting a review
not performance improvements, etc.)