Skip to content

feat: allow path resolver to look at additional paths #78

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

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 12, 2019

Conversation

sriram-mv
Copy link
Contributor

  • search for executables on additional paths that are not on $PATH
  • additional paths take precedence before searching for executables
    on $PATH
  • rev protocol version to 0.2 with introduction of additional search
    paths.

Issue #, if available:

#77

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

- search for executables on additional paths that are not on `$PATH`
- additional paths take precedence before searching for executables
  on `$PATH`
- rev protocol version to 0.2 with introduction of additional search
  paths.
@sriram-mv sriram-mv self-assigned this Feb 8, 2019
@jfuss
Copy link
Contributor

jfuss commented Feb 8, 2019

Are there any integration tests we can add to make sure we don't break this behavior in the future?

@dagnir dagnir mentioned this pull request Feb 11, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@sanathkr sanathkr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Most are minor comments, except for version mismatch handling

- address comments
- add functional tests
Copy link
Contributor

@sanathkr sanathkr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Getting close!

@sriram-mv
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sanathkr we are definitely revving the version. That was an old comment, disregard that.

- extra func test for back compat
Copy link
Contributor

@sanathkr sanathkr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me! Thanks for the changes and functional test. There was a ton of discussion in this PR to clarify what is the version check, why we need it, and how it works. We should document this in a design document for sure. Otherwise this will be lost as tribal knowledge.

Will you be able to add a design document summarizing this discussion? This document should provide mechanics on how this work and provide guidance on when/when-not to rev the version. I am okay if you want to add design doc in a separate PR.

@@ -50,17 +50,19 @@ def tearDown(self):
shutil.rmtree(self.artifacts_dir)

@parameterized.expand([
("request_through_stdin"),
("request_through_argument")
("request_through_stdin", lambda_builders_protocol_version),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can you add a test that fails compat check?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes the test is present below.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ install:
- "%PYTHON%\\python.exe -m pip install -e ."
- "set PATH=C:\\Ruby25-x64\\bin;%PATH%"
- "gem --version"
- "gem install bundler -v 1.17.3 --no-ri --no-rdoc"
- "gem install bundler -v 1.17.3"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah, this is some recent breaking change with gem

Copy link
Contributor

@sanathkr sanathkr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM ⛄️Thanks for all the revisions and version check improvements!

("request_through_stdin"),
("request_through_argument")
])
def test_run_hello_workflow_incompatible(self, flavor):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This test is good for now, but it will need an upgrade when we change the version check logic or bump beyond 2.0.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants