-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
fix(ci): use a local test server for fetch test #207
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
fix(ci): use a local test server for fetch test #207
Conversation
ah, I didn't see this PR before filing #209. I think we should move away from that remote URL entirely instead of trying to paper over it. One reason is that it seems like the failures show up somewhat consistently for all tests of a run if they show up at all: I usually see all of |
Yeah, looks like we have the same intent there -- updating the code to use a temporary server we control is likely the best solution here, skipping the stopgap. |
ef69aee
to
8bcaba2
Compare
832638a
to
6c9382c
Compare
Signed-off-by: Victor Adossi <[email protected]>
6c9382c
to
7aa0182
Compare
Hey @tschneidereit can you take a look at this? should be ready to go now |
e13a19b
to
3490a1d
Compare
Signed-off-by: Victor Adossi <[email protected]>
3490a1d
to
e891103
Compare
@vados-cosmonic thank you for this! It seems like there are still some Windows issues to address, but once those are dealt with, I'm eager to get this landed. |
Signed-off-by: Victor Adossi <[email protected]>
Ah apologies there -- windows paths were being wonky, but I didn't need to do that dynamic import anyway! Should be good now |
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 left a comment in-line on test state management. I'd like to discuss that more before landing this.
Signed-off-by: Victor Adossi <[email protected]>
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.
Thank you! <3
This test seems to be flaky in CI mostly because it relies on a remote URL.
What I'd like to do here is use a server that we manage (similar to how
jco
does, moving over some utility functions from there) that will definitely return JS, but it's not clear how the exportedsource
was intended to be used (is it OK for that to become a function that takes a URL?).In the meantime, we can at least retry the test while it depends on a remote URL (and we don't have any testing frameworks like
vitest
set up).