-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.9k
gh-118331: Fix test_list.ListTest.test_no_memory
under trace refs build
#130921
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
Conversation
Memory allocation ends up failing in _PyRefchainTrace(), which produces different output. Assert that we don't segfault, which is the thing we want to test and is less brittle than checking output.
@@ -324,8 +325,12 @@ def test_no_memory(self): | |||
_testcapi.set_nomemory(0) | |||
l = [None] | |||
""") | |||
_, _, err = assert_python_failure("-c", code) | |||
self.assertIn("MemoryError", err.decode("utf-8")) | |||
rc, _, _ = assert_python_failure("-c", code) |
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.
Can we mark the test with @unittest.skipIf(support.Py_TRACE_REFS, 'cannot test Py_TRACE_REFS build')
so that we don't run it under --with-trace-refs
?
That's what we do in test_repl's test_no_memory
(a different test with the same name).
Along those lines, I'm a bit confused because the PR refers to #118331, but that's a bug report for test_no_memory
in test_repl.py
not the test_no_memory
in test_list.py
.
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.
Can we mark the test with @unittest.skipIf(support.Py_TRACE_REFS, 'cannot test Py_TRACE_REFS build') so that we don't run it under --with-trace-refs?
Sure, I have a slight preference for this change since it's testing the thing we care about (not segfaulting) and works in both builds, but that's fine with me.
Along those lines, I'm a bit confused because the PR refers to #118331, but that's a bug report for test_no_memory in test_repl.py not the test_no_memory in test_list.py.
The PR that introduced the failure under tracerefs is linked to that issue so I figured it was fine to link to it as well. I'll create a new issue for this.
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.
Okay that makes sense. It doesn't need a new issue
…refs build (python#130921) Fix `test_list.ListTest.test_no_memory` under trace refs build Memory allocation ends up failing in _PyRefchainTrace(), which produces different output. Assert that we don't segfault, which is the thing we want to test and is less brittle than checking output.
Memory allocation ends up failing in _PyRefchainTrace(), which produces different output. Assert that we don't segfault, which is the thing we want to test and is less brittle than checking output.