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

test(binding-file): use asynchronous unlink for file deletion #1185

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 7, 2023

Conversation

JKRhb
Copy link
Member

@JKRhb JKRhb commented Dec 7, 2023

This PR might resolve the issues we've been observing with the file client tests.

@JKRhb JKRhb changed the title test(binding-file: use asynchronous unlink for file deletion test(binding-file): use asynchronous unlink for file deletion Dec 7, 2023
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 7, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (7334567) 75.33% compared to head (92ae1fa) 76.66%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1185      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.33%   76.66%   +1.33%     
==========================================
  Files          80       80              
  Lines       16813    16813              
  Branches     1614     1618       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits        12666    12890     +224     
+ Misses       4100     3893     -207     
+ Partials       47       30      -17     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@JKRhb
Copy link
Member Author

JKRhb commented Dec 7, 2023

The file client tests seem to run more reliably now :) Thanks @relu91 for the hint regarding the asynchronous unlink function!

@JKRhb JKRhb mentioned this pull request Dec 7, 2023
@JKRhb JKRhb marked this pull request as ready for review December 7, 2023 07:24
@JKRhb
Copy link
Member Author

JKRhb commented Dec 7, 2023

The only thing left failing sometimes is the MQTT tests now but that should be resolved by #1184 – which PR should we merge first?

Copy link
Member

@relu91 relu91 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's go with this if @danielpeintner is also ok.

@danielpeintner danielpeintner merged commit be1fd88 into eclipse-thingweb:master Dec 7, 2023
11 checks passed
@JKRhb JKRhb deleted the file-client-fix branch December 7, 2023 10:27
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