Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-15513

jointcal test outputs collide

    XMLWordPrintable

    Details

    • Story Points:
      0.5
    • Sprint:
      AP F18-3
    • Team:
      Alert Production

      Description

      It appears that at least two jointcal tests write to .test/JointcalTestCFHTMinimal/run/verify.  This may be due to an incorrect caller in https://github.com/lsst/jointcal/blob/master/tests/test_jointcal_cfht_minimal.py#L155

        Attachments

          Activity

          Hide
          Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - - edited

          John Swinbank: do you mind doing this tiny (+/-9) review? I've tested it locally, and it now outputs to the correct directories, so the race condition should be fixed.

          Note that I'll be out of touch from Thursday morning through Tuesday, so if you're happy with it, feel free to merge.

          Jenkins run: https://ci.lsst.codes/blue/organizations/jenkins/stack-os-matrix/detail/stack-os-matrix/28459/pipeline

          Show
          Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - - edited John Swinbank : do you mind doing this tiny (+/-9) review? I've tested it locally, and it now outputs to the correct directories, so the race condition should be fixed. Note that I'll be out of touch from Thursday morning through Tuesday, so if you're happy with it, feel free to merge. Jenkins run: https://ci.lsst.codes/blue/organizations/jenkins/stack-os-matrix/detail/stack-os-matrix/28459/pipeline
          Hide
          swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - - edited

          Changes look mostly fine, except that I believe that they render a bunch of the comments wrong: in

                  # the calling method is one step back on the stack: use it to specify the output repo.
          -         caller = inspect.stack()[1][3]  # NOTE: could be inspect.stack()[1].function in py3.5
          +         caller = inspect.stack()[0].function
          

          the calling method is not one step back on the stack (and hence the change from stack()[1] to [0]).

          I'll push a further commit removing those comments and then merge (unless you're still about and want to do it yourself).

          Show
          swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - - edited Changes look mostly fine, except that I believe that they render a bunch of the comments wrong: in # the calling method is one step back on the stack: use it to specify the output repo. - caller = inspect.stack()[1][3] # NOTE: could be inspect.stack()[1].function in py3.5 + caller = inspect.stack()[0].function the calling method is not one step back on the stack (and hence the change from stack() [1] to [0] ). I'll push a further commit removing those comments and then merge (unless you're still about and want to do it yourself).
          Hide
          swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

          Done. Thanks for the quick fix on this one, John Parejko.

          Show
          swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - Done. Thanks for the quick fix on this one, John Parejko .

            People

            Assignee:
            Parejkoj John Parejko
            Reporter:
            ktl Kian-Tat Lim
            Reviewers:
            John Swinbank
            Watchers:
            John Parejko, John Swinbank, Kian-Tat Lim
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            3 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: