Skip to content

GH-145762: Fix test_ci_fuzz_stdlib when running the tests after building from the source archive #145778

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
chris-eibl wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+1 −1
Open

GH-145762: Fix test_ci_fuzz_stdlib when running the tests after building from the source archive #145778

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion Lib/test/test_tools/test_compute_changes.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ def test_ci_fuzz_stdlib(self):
elif p.is_file():
f = p
else:
self.fail(f"LIBRARY_FUZZER_PATHS contains an invalid entry: {p!r}")
continue
Copy link
Member

@webknjaz webknjaz Mar 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@StanFromIreland do we still want to log this, though? Or perhaps have a mechanism for skipping checks / checking against different sets of files in certain envs?

Copy link
Member

@StanFromIreland StanFromIreland Mar 10, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Or perhaps have a mechanism for skipping checks / checking against different sets of files in certain envs?

As I noted in the issue, this will greatly complicate the test (and increase the maintenance burden, who knows what envs people use), for something that is not particularly important. As such, I think skipping is fine, logging them too, however, sounds good.

Copy link
Member Author

@chris-eibl chris-eibl Mar 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"Simple prints" will get lost in the noise of the output, and be false-positives in the OPs case.

I don't think

print(f"Warning: LIBRARY_FUZZER_PATHS might contain an invalid entry: {p!r}")

will do any good.
So I think this is fine to go. It was the previous behaviour, anyway. I just thought it is a low hanging fruit to crop when the else was removed in #145232 and we had spurious failures ...

result = process_changed_files({f})
self.assertTrue(result.run_ci_fuzz_stdlib)
self.assertTrue(is_fuzzable_library_file(f))
Expand Down
Loading