Skip to content
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: always execute closeContainer() executor #988

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 10, 2022

Conversation

ZauberNerd
Copy link
Contributor

@ZauberNerd ZauberNerd commented Feb 9, 2022

During our earlier refactoring in #984 we accidentally changed the
behaviour in such a way that the closeContainer() executor was never
called.

This commit restores the earlier behaviour and adds test cases for this regression.

Ref:

This commit adds tests to ensure that the executors of `startContainer`,
`stopContainer`, `interpolateOutputs` and `closeContainer` are always
called in the correct order.
@ZauberNerd ZauberNerd requested a review from a team as a code owner February 9, 2022 17:51
@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Feb 9, 2022

@ZauberNerd this pull request has failed checks 🛠

@mergify mergify bot added the needs-work Extra attention is needed label Feb 9, 2022
@pull-request-size pull-request-size bot added size/M and removed size/L labels Feb 9, 2022
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 9, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #988 (fd84c2a) into master (4f8da0a) will increase coverage by 0.73%.
The diff coverage is 85.18%.

❗ Current head fd84c2a differs from pull request most recent head 5bba913. Consider uploading reports for the commit 5bba913 to get more accurate results

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #988      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   57.50%   58.24%   +0.73%     
==========================================
  Files          32       34       +2     
  Lines        4594     4615      +21     
==========================================
+ Hits         2642     2688      +46     
+ Misses       1729     1703      -26     
- Partials      223      224       +1     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pkg/runner/job_executor.go 81.57% <81.57%> (ø)
pkg/runner/action.go 84.21% <84.21%> (ø)
pkg/runner/step_context.go 85.83% <86.95%> (+4.20%) ⬆️
pkg/runner/run_context.go 80.07% <94.11%> (+0.42%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e4f0080...5bba913. Read the comment docs.

@mergify mergify bot removed the needs-work Extra attention is needed label Feb 9, 2022
Copy link
Member

@KnisterPeter KnisterPeter left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks

Copy link
Contributor

@ChristopherHX ChristopherHX left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I better ran my fd leak test on the previous change... This is not something you would notice easily within act.

@mergify mergify bot merged commit 9abc87b into nektos:master Feb 10, 2022
@ZauberNerd ZauberNerd deleted the fix-jobexecutor-refactoring branch February 10, 2022 20:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants